Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:46:06 -0800
Reply-To: Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Our rigs ain't pigs (caution: major argument)
In-Reply-To: <C1A8432D.1F6F%npoole@telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
You make some good points, Nathaniel, about the power/weight/mileage picture
but I really don't think you'd be happy with the output of the Echo motor in
your van.
The WBXs torque is relatively flat from 2200 RPM to 4500 RPM. I haven't
looked it up but I'll bet that the Echo's torque peak is at 4500 RPM, with
relatively little power available at lower revs.
Those who have installed Golf motors in their Vanagons get 22-25 M/US Gal
versus 35 in the Golf. Subie motors about the same. TDI gets a much better
mileage rate but at a much higher initial cost.
Subies and diesels make a better match for the gearing and aerodynamics of
the German Driving Apartment. :)
On 12/15/06, Nathaniel Poole <npoole@telus.net> wrote:
>
> I just read an very interesting article in todayıs Old and Male newspaper
> describing automotive trends since 1980. In the light of this article, it
> shows these archaic, underpowered rigs of ours really were not that far
> off
> the mark for their time.
>
> It also shows how gradually, through the forces of marketing, we have been
> hoodwinked. I also think it shows that us VW van owners are actually more
> progressive than the general population, resisting a powerful trend.
>
> What the data shows is that since 1980 average vehicle horsepower climbed
> 85%, vehicle weight 30%, while MPG stayed mostly static at around 20. For
> light trucks as a category, acceleration has increased 4-fold.
>
> There are several issues here. The most obvious is that if we still
> accepted
> the power and acceleration of our old rigs in modern vehicles, one can
> only
> imagine the MPG we would be getting. Drop engine displacement by half and
> imagine what fuel economy you would get with modern, powerful, fuel
> efficient engines. I know these things arenıt linear, but my wifeıs echo
> has
> a 1.5 litre @ 108 hp. It gets 54 MPG. If it had a one-litre motor in it
> what
> mileage would it get? In 1980 that would have been adequate power and
> displacement.
>
> While these vans were never speedsters (who would expect it with a camper
> anyway) the engines were acceptable in their time. Remember, average hp
> was
> almost half of todayıs in 1980. It is our expectations that have changed.
> More power and speed and damn the economics and environment.
>
> What would be really, really interesting, would be to take a modern, low
> displacement high efficiency engine and use that for a conversion.
> The Echo engine above I believe has 108 ft/lbs of torque which is close to
> the WBX, so you wouldnıt notice the power difference in a van, but I would
> bet you would get a hell of a boost in MPG. In my AC van I could put in an
> even smaller motor without noticing a power difference, but I doubt one
> even
> exists today.
>
> Sometimes it worth the while to stop and think about these long term
> changes
> that happen without anyone asking if thatıs what we really want.
> If somebody came forward today and said it would be official policy that
> motor vehicle power would double over the next twenty five years with no
> improvement in gas mileage, I think there would be at least a lively
> debate
> about it.
>
>
--
Jake
1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
www.crescentbeachguitar.com
| 
