Date:         Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:49:26 -0500
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
Comments: To: mailinglist@fastforward.ca
In-Reply-To:  <4237.192.168.0.115.1200087049.squirrel@hasenwerk.homeip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Wow someone brings up complexity.. good good.  No you're absolutely
right adding more thing increases risk and increases the chances of
failure. However the zetec conversion itself is so simple, that adding
what we need to offer outstanding power to weight and great power
levels STILL keeps things simpler than what's out there.  That's the
arguement for having both power adders. The turbo is more efficient,
but comes at the cost of simplicity.. there is another cooling system
for the intercooler, and there is more intake plumbing, and there is
an oil feed and return. The supercharger on the other hand while not
offering the same output levels of efficiency of the turbo, still
offers great torque in the low end because it's a positive
displacement blower, and doesn't have any additional oil lines intake
plumbing etc.. just an extra idler and longer belt, both still widely
available.

 We only have 27 wires in the main harness for either implementation,
how many in the R-TDI? Scott how many in the subies?

Jim Akiba



On 1/11/08, David Marshall <mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
> So let me get this straight...

> 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!