Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (September 2007, week 4)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:33:01 -0700
Reply-To:     Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject:      Re: 1.9 heads on a 2.1 motor?
Comments: To: Geza Polony <gezapolony@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2007092701151996@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Air cooled people may do that because that's their affliction/addiction. A waterboxer engine isn't that good a candidate for turbo power for one thing....tho it's been done. It's not like they have a really solid head gasket system. Bottom ends are robust for sure on wbxr engines. Gowesty makes 2.3's and even a 2.5 I think. Still a push rod 8 valve engine. Still does not have knock sensor ignition I don't think - which is a great thing to have. . Still uses a distributor, tho that's not too big a penalty, but no modern engines do. Until you get to variable valve timing.....using cam profiles to increase power can only get you More power at the high end, at the cost of low end power. Almost all stock cam grinds Are the best compromise for decent low end power, and good high end power. Not until variable valve timing can you get around that. Modern engines with great low end power and really good top end power have variable intake valve timing, some have variable exh. Timing, and some have multiple intake paths, short and long, depending on rpm and load. And of course 4 valve heads. NOW THAT would be worth looking into - 4 valve heads for a waterboxer. THIS I CAN GET exited about. More valve area, equals more cylinder filling and more power. Keeping it pushrod would be a shame, but .....that I can really get excited about ....only one part to make as a fresh casting - the head/s. There......it's so obvious I would think someone has or is doing that. Four Valve Heads for a waterboxer. Perfect ! I can't see any downsides other than the cost of the development and the heads, valves, seats, guides, springs etc....... I'd probably use subaru parts, since they're close to waterboxer anyway.

AND ...someone has put subaru 4 valve heads on an air cooled bug drag racing engine, OHC too. That wouldn't be impossible on a waterboxer either - make it be OHC with 4 valve heads.

Other than some fundamental re-engineering like 4 valve heads, At some point, you just 'can't get there' ....as much as you'd like to. working with an old design. That waterboxer design , to me, dates from .....really, the overall layout and concept dates from the first bug engines. Sure fuel injection and liquid cooling were added..... Displacement increased etc.....but the whole layout .....and concept, is over 50 years old I dare say. You just can not make a horse and buggy into a formula one car, no matter how much you modify it. Up to a 50 % increase in horse power is possible in a waterboxer, but I think you'd be weak on durability and longevity. Bu since I thought of 4 valve heads up there......hmmmm.......you got me thinking. Now I'm wondering if subaru heads can be cut for cylinder barrel holes. Hmmm....... ! next time I have some soobie heads in hand, and a waterboxer engine nearby ...... Scott www.turbovans.com

-----Original Message----- From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of Geza Polony Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:10 PM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: 1.9 heads on a 2.1 motor?

Ok, now this all's got me thinking...does anyone ever "build" these engines? Ie., bore them (I think GoWesty does this), increase compression, change cam characteristics, larger valves, tweaked ECU, turbo,and all the other stuff that goes into a higher performance engine?

If not, why not? Again, if I'm not mistaken, this happens all the time in the air-cooled world. It seems like the waterboxer low end, crankshaft, bearings, etc., is pretty sturdy, so that probably wouldn't be an issue. If people are spending mega bucks to do conversions, couldn't they put the same into the waterboxer and end up with twice the power (of the wbx, not the conversion engine)?

Just musing, late at night.


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.