Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:13:29 -0400
Reply-To: Hans Achter <hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Hans Achter <hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
| 
