Date:         Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:19:28 -0500
Reply-To:     Jim Felder <felder@KNOLOGY.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Felder <felder@KNOLOGY.NET>
Subject:      Re: yet another engine choice - VW "twincharger" HOLD IT!!
In-Reply-To:  <010d01c5c454$3eaefec0$8e3f9e04@avtron.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

When I TD'd and intercooled my Diesel Westy, the mileage increased from
24 to 26 commonly and to 28.1 occasionally. So, don't be too quick to
judge at least in the diesel category.

I don't know about gasoline engines, but Diesels REALLY like (and need)
turbos.

BTW I've never had a V8 either and never will, and only once had a 6 in
a 911.

Jim


On Sep 28, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Tom Miller wrote:

> When are we going to learn to get off the HP drug habit?  Here we are
> at
> $3/gal. (and increasing) gasoline in the US and yet we eat up V8
> engines in
> '06 Chevy Impala's and 170HP Twin-Charger diesel VW's!  I have a 2005.5
> Jetta with the 1.9L PD engine that gets 47 MPG overall during the past
> 3800
> miles, at 100 HP in a sedan that holds 5 people.  There are all sorts
> of
> people on this list that have gone through the pain and agony of
> installing
> TDI engines with and without the electronic controls in their
> Vanagon's to
> get better than 17 MPG from the stock motors.  I thought the race for
> HP
> went away during the first oil embargo in the 70's?  Supply & demand
> are at
> our heals now and those with large engines that get under 32 MPG are
> costing
> all of us more to fill up our vehicles with gas or diesel.  Am I off
> base by
> suggesting we wake up and start thinking globally and act locally?  I
> was
> told that in the early 80's and bought my first VW (Rabbit Diesel LS).
>  I
> haven't had a V8 (or an 'American' car since) and never will!  I'm
> doing my
> part to keep your fuel costs down through reduced demand.  What are you
> doing to keep my fuel cost down?  And that of the rest of us?  It
> might be
> nice to own a Twin-Charger in a Golf for fun.  It does not make sense
> as a
> commuter vehicle, or for long trips.  IMHO.
> TEMiller
> VW in my blood!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Cardo" <rrecardo@WEBTV.NET>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: yet another engine choice - VW "twincharger"
>
>
>> <<A supercharger is geared to the engine's rotating parts, like a
>> permanently mounted fan.
>>  They are notoriously hard on engines,>>
>>
>> Not really.
>> Depend's on what engine your sticing it on.
>>
>> Paxton has been bolting supercharger's on the front of engine for
>> years
>> with good results.
>> You just can't overdrive the supercharger's beyond the engine's
>> capabilities.
>>
>> <<Turbocharging is easier on engines but has a lag as the turbo spools
>> up to speed.>>
>>
>> Yes and no.
>>
>> Kick up the boost a little too high, and you'll blow the crank out the
>> bottom of the pan in no time.
>> Melted piston's are a big bonus with a big push of intake .
>>
>> Supercharging requires horsepower to function (but can be balanced out
>> with the incresae of horses when it's doing it's thing), turbocharging
>> is a freebee.
>> It a by product product of the exhaust flow, but it's not a "right
>> now",
>> when you mash the pedal boost in power.
>>
>