Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:30:49 -0800
Reply-To: David Marshall <mailinglist@FASTFORWARD.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Marshall <mailinglist@FASTFORWARD.CA>
Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
In-Reply-To: <ac1f198b0801111237g2f814b10kf4a3dd729b61db4e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
So let me get this straight...
Installing on a larger VNT-20 or
VNT-22 turbo, 12mm injector pump, big nozzles, massive charge air cooler
and custom software on a stock block makes it a stock engine and better
yet will retain it's longevity? Cool!
Adding things to
make an engine more complex isn't upping the odds that something is going
to fail because to have more stuff to fail? Cool!
David
Marshall
http://www.hasenwerk.ca
http://www.fastforward.ca
Box 4153, Quesnel BC, Canada V2J
3J2
On Fri, January 11, 2008 12:37, Jim Akiba wrote:
>
On 1/11/08, David Marshall <mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
>> If you bolted on a supercharger, it isn't a stock engine -
period.
>
> I see your point, but to most, engine =
longblock... so if a gearhead
> sees a blower on an engine, they
then ask "is the engine stock?"
> meaning "are the
internals, head, cam, etc" stock. The answer is yes.
> YOU
said "heavily modified" which means the opposite of a stock
> longblock, in which internals are reworked. An engine with a blower
is
> not automatically considered a "heavily modified
engine", but this is
> more semantics. The point is anything
more granular than the longblock
> is never touched.
>
>> I'm not selling anything and I acknowledge that I am my own
warranty
>> with my
>> own stuff. You are selling
stuff and you are the warranty for that
>> stuff.
>>
So what ever as far as I am personally concerned.
>
> It
isn't whatever as far as you're concerned because you replied to
>
the thread with skepticism and and a negative opinion presented as a
> blanket appraisal of the engine we use, so you do care... your
> motives? Not sure.. but the result is useful. It gives me the
> opportunity to defend us without just coming around every now and
then
> and dropping self satisfying spam bombs about how great our
conversion
> is onto the list.
>
>> If the
stock engine you are installing isn't really up to snuff to be an
>> IMPROVEMENT to the vanagon without bolting on superchargers,
oil coolers
>> and
>> modifying software then you
are adding more items to the equation that
>> will
>> cost more and can and will break and reduce the over all
reliability of
>> the
>> Vanagon that is
converted.
>
> I agree with that statement totally. But
what you're implying couldn't
> be more incorrect.
>
>> Let's not forget the original point that I was making here and
that is
>> Vanagons need the low end (in the 2000 to 3000 rpm
range) power that a
>> Diesel engine provides more than the
high end power that most gasoline
>> engines provide above 4000
rpm. I am not saying that ALL gasoline
>> engines
>> are poor - far from it, what I am saying is that without
additional
>> modifications to the engine most gasoline engines
out there that will
>> reasonably fit a Vanagon will not
perform as well as a stock TDI.
>
> I agree with you, and
nobody in vanagonland is typically the majority
> in most anything
they do. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad or good,
> nor does it
mean it's not possible.
>
>
>> For me, an
engine has to do the following:
>>
>> - Survive
20.000km a year for five years
>> - Decent power below 3000 rpm
to achieve better acceleration and hill
>> climbing
>> - Maximum power available close to highway rpm to achieve the
best fuel
>> economy and have the ability to pass someone
without gearing down
>> - Consumes less fuel both quantity wise
and dollar wise than a stock
>> wasserboxer
>> - At
the end of five years have the total cost of owner ship less than
>> rebuilding a wasserboxer and feeding that wasserboxer fuel for
those
>> five
>> years.
>
> That
sounds good to me.
>
>
>> The above can be
done without a Diesel, but there are few engines out
>>
there
>> that will do this.
>
> This is boring
when I agree with you all the time.
>
>
> Jim
Akiba
>
|