Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:23:26 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
In-Reply-To: <BAY115-DAV1939607D56CE85F2A48CD8D2320@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Oh and I almost forgot the weight Hans! It isn't just 100lbs more than stock
in the rear. It's another 100lbs or more than the 2.2, which is already 70
more than stock, so it's the same thing as having someone sitting on the
deck lid(actually below, but you know what I mean) all the time, if you load
the rear cargo area forget the 50/50 weight distro you could easily end up
40/60. While some people would be hard pressed to "feel" and find the
additional weight, I think it's noticeable. Power to weight wise the turbo
has it.
Jim Akiba
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Achter [mailto:hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:13 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
A WRX could be done but the SVX six-cylinder has several advantages.
- The SVX has more power and torque, and has it at the low end where most
people with a vanagon can use it. You don't have to rev it up to feel the
torque. That's nice to have when off-roading or just running around town.
- The SVX costs the customer far less to install.
- The SVX is far less complex to install, and produces more power without
the complexity of a turbocharging system.
- Because of the fuel tank location, the turbo is more difficult to place in
a syncro without burning down the van.
- The SVX fits the engine compartment like a glove, and the 100 lb extra is
not noticeable on a 5000 lb syncro westy.
- The SVX is already very quiet on the highway using the 0.70 fourth, and
has a pleasing exhaust note around town - it really reminds me of the sound
of my old 73 Porsche 911.
-Hans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Akiba" <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: 102mph
> Ben is right, the turbo is the way to go... save the extra 100 lbs of the
> 6,
> it'll be way quieter, and more efficient with the combined cycle. The only
> reason to go for the 6 would be uniqueness unless it is harder to turbo
> the
> subie than I'm guessing.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Achter [mailto:hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:42 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: 102mph
>
> Easy there, Ben! Let's make sure you're still in one piece after a year.
> No turbo, we can do six-cylinder!
> -Hans
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benny boy" <huotb@VIDEOTRON.CA>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: 102mph
>
>
>> The question is not the speed, but how fast this one is to reach, i said
>> 15
>> to 20 seconde to be polite :-) it was more like 10sec, and i was more at
>> 60mph. Of course, any in shape VW wasser will do it... down hill, wind in
>> the back and after 30 minutes :-)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Anyway, now i need a Turbo, next year...
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:32:52 -0500, Jeff Lincoln <magikvw@GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah - I had my 85' 1.9 up to 95mph (actually more realistically 90mph) -
>>>I
>>>will never ever ever do that again.
>>>
>>>On 5/16/07, Todd Last <rubatoguy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is only 12mph more than I was able to do in my stock 2.1 Westy
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone for a "Vanagons at Bonneville" event?
>>>>
>>>> Todd
>>>> '88 Westy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
|