Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:52:36 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post
In-Reply-To: <71d9cdf90705181230i72bb955fm2776945778375bf9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Those subie figures don't correspond to what we've measured. When we
converted the first 2.2L subie to zetec the van(both conversion had AC BTW)
was 40 lbs lighter as installed and running, I know the zetec fully dressed
is just under 300, which puts the 2.2 at 330-340 not 290. How were the
weights you got calculated?
Jim Akiba
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake de Villiers [mailto:crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:31 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post
Hi Don.
FYI the WBX goed 265 lbs with engine cradle etc attached, the 2.2 Subaru
motor 290.
I think your I-4 with its cast iron block will weigh more than either one.
But you should definitely supercharge your motor, that's got to be a good
thing! 8-)
On 5/18/07, Don Hanson <dhanson@gorge.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
> No, not the boxer motor. This may seem like blasphemy, especially here on
> the Vanagon List, but from everything I have read
> (never owned one myself) the waterboxer seems a pretty weak design all
> around. At least that is what I glean from all the rap.
> What I was thinking is an inline 4 vw motor, perhaps even the one I
> already have in my 84, which is an older 8-valve 1.8liter. I will have to
> do some further research, but I've seen mention of aftermarket kits and
> parts available for 1.8L Turbo VW factory motors, and I understand the
> basic
> pieces of the VW inline four haven't been changed much. If the factory
> put
> out turbos and GTIs using that platform, it may be feasible to bolt on a
> supercharger without overstressing the motor beyond reason. Luckily, I
> don't live in California, so the C.A.R.B. dweebs are not a concern..(BTW,
> why do they go after little guys with small motor conversions there in
> Wow-fornia and let Mexican truckers run around spewing black smoke, and
> stuff like that? moot question.)
> If one were to keep the final power output within reason, it seems to me
> like it'd work great. Hold the HP down to about what you get from a 2.5
> liter Subie. Probably the motor weight would be near 3-500lbs less. The
> initial conversion is certainly much cheaper and simpler than a Subie
> conversion, what with an I-4 being cheap and readily available.
> The guys who've stuck em onto vehicles I have seen seem to have no major
> issues with engine management. The issues seem to be pretty
> basic..Getting
> the drive belts and brackets done properly, sizing the pulleys for proper
> "pump" speed, etc.
> I am going to look into this seriously as I just sold my '72 Beetle and
> have about the proper sum of cash sitting around right now from that
> transaction...Hmmm The target would be about 150-175hp from a motor that
> is
> 3-4 hundred lbs lighter than a waterboxer and that's found in every VW
> since
> the Rabbit...
> Don Hanson
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:17 -0400
> > From: Jim Akiba <> Subject: Re: Huffer motors..Turbo and SC...
> >
> > Hey Don,
> >
> > Do you mean supercharge the boxer? Yeah you could do it, but there are
> > serious downsides. The big three are that since the boxer is already
> prone
> > to head gasket sealing problems as most open decks are, forced induction
> in
> > anything but the lowest of boost levels is asking for trouble. Second
> you'd
> > have to change the engine management significantly enough to cause the
> whole
> > project to cost quite a bit of money, and the supercharger itself isn't
> > cheap. You'd also have to bring whatever other pieces of the puzzle that
> are
> > old and worn up to spec, you can't push the limits of an engine if it's
> near
> > failure already either because it is maxed out by design or state of
> > operation because of age, miles, etc. Lastly since the boxer is
> expensive
> > to rebuild/replace, the risk financially is huge. If you spent 5k on
> > supercharging the setup and pop your engine, are you really willing to
> spend
> > another 4k for a rebuild to attempt it again? What is the second rebuild
> > goes? You're then 13k into it with nothing to show. The risk money-wise
> is
> > huge, the *potential* ROI is small. Doable? Sure. Prudent... eh..
> dunno...
> > You're right about the altitude though, in our 3500k mile trip just this
> > past month, at altitudes of 6k and above with the supercharged setup we
> were
> > still pulling good grades at 65-70 if we wanted to push it.
> >
> > Jim Akiba
>
--
Jake
1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
www.crescentbeachguitar.com
|