Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 2007, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Fri, 18 May 2007 00:56:29 -0400
Reply-To:     Sudhir Desai <sudhir.desai@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Sudhir Desai <sudhir.desai@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
Comments: To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com>
In-Reply-To:  <002801c798fb$e6186480$b2492d80$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

also, the 6-cylinder can be a finicky engine if it's not pampered. (just what i've heard secondhand) that being said, i would rather have a lower-stressed 6-cyl that has the ability to run on 87 if it absolutely has to, versus a high-strung turbo-4 that needs 91 or higher at all times to reduce/eliminate detonation. (power being the same ~240bhp) sudhir

On 5/17/07, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.