Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:55:55 -0500
Reply-To: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Stan Wilder <wilden1-1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: yet another engine choice - VW "twincharger" HOLD IT!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
US and yet we eat up V8
Jim
------------------ Clip --------------------
My 92 Crown Vic Ford with a big V8 engine gets 25 mpg at 70 mph on the
highway.
It's the small cc engines that are in the Vanagons that require a gallon to
go 17 -20 miles.
It could just be the box design but my Ford weighs 3800 pounds and still
gets better economy than my 83 Air Cooled Westy or most Vanagons.
My 911 Porsche gets right at 25 mpg at 75-85 mph all the way back from
Greely CO to Dallas TX.
In short .............. you can buy about any car and beat the Vanagon
mileage.
You can buy a whole 92 Crown Vic with A/C that works and low mileage for
less than you can do a diesel conversion on a Vanagon.
Then there is my standard argument .................... How many ten year
old Turbo Charged cars are still running today?
Mercedes has lots of them and lots of Heavy to Monster trucks are still
running but you'll find very few small cc engines cars that survive as much
as 10 years when they're turbocharged.
I find plenty of diesel turbo charged Dodge, Chevy and Ford trucks with
275,000 miles on them and the auto auction prices are around $1800.00 here
in Texas for these trucks.
I doubt you'd ever get 275K out of an under powered Turbo Charged Diesel
Vanagon but I respect that the over powered trucks can reach this terminal
existence.
Stan Wilder
Engine Ceramics
214-352-4931
www.engineceramics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Felder" <felder@KNOLOGY.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: yet another engine choice - VW "twincharger" HOLD IT!!
> 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.
> >>
> >
|