Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:24:22 -0700
Reply-To: neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: '82 diesel 1.8 conversion
In-Reply-To: <0JN1003H9S2YA7U8@vms042.mailsrvcs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
So related to this (somewhat) ......
Don Hanson had written of an aftermarket cam (sorry don't know name)
with "mild 270 degree duration and moderate lift". He installed this
on his 1.8 and seemed happy with results.
If one installed an aftermarket cam on the 1.8 head on a 2.0 engine,
is the change in lift going to bring the valve head any nearer to the
piston top?
Am I misunderstanding what "lift" means? (been a long time since I've
thought about these terms!)
Neil.
--
Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia -
"Jaco" (Bustorius)
http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
Please send me your Vanagon/Westfalia links!
http://vanagonlinks.googlepages.com/home
On 8/19/07, pdooley <psdooley@verizon.net> wrote:
> Better ports and smaller diameter valve guides.
> The counterflow head uses 8mm guides, the crossflow has 7mm.
> The smaller diameter guide allows more air to flow past.
>
> There is also gain by moving the air in one side the head and out the other.
> The glass flow is strait thru instead of making a 180 degree turn back out.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert Keezer
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 8:08 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: '82 diesel 1.8 conversion
>
> --- pdooley <psdooley@VERIZON.NET> wrote:
>
> > A little claririficatoion here-
> >
> > The crossflow head flows better than the
> > counterflow head
>
>
> What makes a crossflow head flow more than a
> counterflow?
>
>
> Robert
>
> 1982 Westfalia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- pdooley <psdooley@VERIZON.NET> wrote:
>
> > A little claririficatoion here-
> >
> > The crossflow head flows better than the
> > counterflow head and will make more
> > horsepower regardless of the intake manifold.
> >
> > Longer intake runners don't make more
> > horsepower.
> >
> > Longer runners make more torque at lower rpm.
> > Ever wonder why the Eurovan VR6 intake manifold
> > has longer runners than the
> > Golf/Jetta VR?
> >
> > So the crossflow head coupled with the long
> > runner ABA intake manifold is a
> > better choice.
> >
> > The only disadvantage is the increased motor
> > height.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vanagon Mailing List
> > [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> > neil N
> > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:49 PM
> > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > Subject: Re: '82 diesel 1.8 conversion
> >
> > Cool. Ok.
> >
> > I generally understand what you are saying.
> >
> > Any decrease in HP when 1.8 head put on 2.0 ,
> > is due to the 1.8 intake
> > manifold shorter runs and at exhaust.
> > Especially if these are not
> > tuned to whatever cam is being used. Correct?
> >
> > Neil.
> >
> > On 8/19/07, Robert Keezer
> > <warmerwagen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > The main reason for going with a 1.8 head and
> > > intake manifold when using the Diesel
> > hardware is
> > > is to fit the engine under the engine lid.
> > >
> > > Using the 2.0 stock puts the crossflow intake
> > > manifold above the lid, meaning you have to
> > cut a
> > > hole in the lid .
> > >
> > > The benefit of the longer intake runners on
> > with
> > > the crossflow head is hp gain.
> > > Long runners equal hp gain.
> > >
> > >
> > > The benefit of the longer runners is in a
> > narrow
> > > range of RPM, most likely over 5,000 rpm,
> > where
> > > it is rare to go in a Vanagon.
> > >
> > > The compromise then is the Digifant intake
> > > manifold. This has longer runners than say a
> > VW
> > > Fox or Rabbit.
> > >
> > > Long runners are tuned runners. They help
> > > increase air flow to the cylinders. The more
> > air
> > > -fuel you can cram into the cylinders, the
> > more
> > > power you can get. The exhaust downpipes also
> > > need to be a tuned length, such as individual
> > > headers on a performance race engine have a
> > > certain length before joining together.
> > >
> > > Length of intake and exhaust is designed by
> > > formula starting with the cam . The pressure
> > wave
> > > is timed to return to the valve just as it
> > opens
> > > or closes.
> > >
> > > Incorectly tuned exhaust will lower hp .
> > >
> > > The Tiico has a good example of a tuned
> > exhaust.
> > > The manifold divides the exhaust in 2 and
> > sendsit
> > > down two seperate pipes a certain length
> > before
> > > joining.
> > >
> > > The intake ports and exhaust ports are the
> > same
> > > size for 1.8 and 2 liter.
> > >
> > > The longer tuned length is useful for a
> > lighter
> > > car that can spool up rpm rapidly.
> > >
> > > In the heavy Westfalia you need a bigger
> > engine
> > > or performance mods to do this.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- neil N <musomuso@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Robert.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know if there's a HP loss (tiny loss
> > > > likely) when using the 1.8
> > > > head on the ABA 2.0?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Neil.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Please send me your Vanagon/Westfalia
> > links!
> > > > http://vanagonlinks.googlepages.com/home
> > > >
> > > > Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia.
> > > > http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/18/07, Robert Keezer
> > > > <warmerwagen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Byron,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done the 1.8 conversion and my
> > > > > recommendation is to use a 2.0 liter(
> > '93-'99
> > > > ABA
> > > > > block with the 1.8 head instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have gone thru two 1.8's and so has a
> > > > > friend's.In my experience they don't hold
> > up
> > > > to
> > > > > the demand the Westfalia puts on them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The 1.8's are underpowered in a Westfalia
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > strian is too much for the rods . I have
> > had
> > > > two
> > > > > engines burn out rod bearings and
> > likewise my
> > > > > friends.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 2 liter has oil spray nozzles that
> > spray
> > > > the
> > > > > bottom of the pistons, cooling them and
> > thus
> > > > > keeping the rods cooler.
> > > > > It also has more HP and torque than the
> > 1.8.
> > > > > 2.0 blocks around here go for
> > 200.00-300.00.
> > > > >
> > > > > You use the 1.8 head and head gasket. You
> > > > need to
> > > > > clearance the left firewall to accomodate
> > the
> > > > > intake manifold. For fuel injection
> > system
> > > > you
> > > > > can use CIS, CIS-E, DIgifant 2, Motronic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find Digifant 2 the esiest fuel
> > injection.
> > > > > ('88-'92 Golf -Jetta)
> > > > >
> > > > > My 2 liter has gone over 215,000 miles
> > since
> > > > I
> > > > > installed it in 1999. It's a strong
> > engine,
> > > > and
> > > > > smoother, less vibration.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know the Diesel sounds good but I
> > would'mnt
> > > > go
> > > > > with anything less that a TDI or 1.9
> > turbo.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other thing to consider is the
> > > > transmission.
> > > > > Your stock Diesel trans is low geared and
> > > > makes
> > > > > the engine run about 1,000 rpm's higher
> > than
> > > > if
> > > > > you use a air-cooled trans with all the
> > > > Diesel
> > > > > trans stuff like bellhousing, brackets
> > and
> > > > > mounts.
> > > > >
> > > > > GTI engine , 1.8 , about 105 hp and 109
> > ft
> > > > lbs
> > > > > torque.
> > > > > ABA engine 115 hp and 126 ft lbs of
> > torque.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, how you fuel it or mods your
> > > > > make/don't make, can increase/decrease
> > those
> > > > > numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > > 1982 Westfalia
> > > > >
> > > > >
| 
