Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:52:26 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: vanagon engine conversions
In-Reply-To: <921774.78051.qm@web35806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hey Sam,
I agree, and disagree with you at the same time. I too was wooed by
the whole idea of bio-diesel. But I would ask, how many people out
there actually make/use bio-diesel what percent of the time? I can see
a scenario much like many other well meaning operations... but unless
you adjust your lifestyle and really dedicate yourself to doing so, I
highly doubt that it is feasible for most that use that as a chief
reason to go diesel to actually carry it out. It is true, it is
doable, but how many will actually... or how many will find it
difficult and end up with tanks of pump diesel. Now we'll get a few
that will chime in and tell me how they do it, and are being
responsible.. but the others that have diesel vans with tanks full of
petro diesel will not chime in... it's impossible to know the answer,
but I suspect that it falls far short of the original intent and
motivation to do so.
To me, while you're right, corn ethanol is not even a net energy
positive solution... it is the one getting the money and research.
Just last year 385 million of fed money(read YOUR money, and my
money)was put into ethanol development. They've started building
plants even though the whole cellulosic ethanol process hasn't even
been worked out yet.. that didn't stop the building though. To me,
fixing on the one solution is better than having a drawn out VHS/beta
battle... while I ascribe to all of the thought and intent behind the
solution that is bio-diesel, with the complete lack of diesel
proliferation from both market and legislative perspectives, and the
acceleration of particulate emissions regulations to prevent further
diesel proliferation whether anyone likes it or not, it seems the
tables are turned against it. While this alone is no reason to give up
a fight for anything.. the alternative... SHOULD the goal of
switchgrass, algae, or some much more efficient production method
arise, which I believe is inevitable.. the current fleet,
infrastructure, and powers that be will assist to make it a success.
Moreover, the plebes which are being groomed to accept it will be
ready(while distasteful this is important). Will bio-diesel gain that
level of support? It is not positioned to, nor has it so far. So while
I appreciate the sides of argument that you put forward and understand
the merit, I think that on practical grounds, the chances of the line
of argument staying unchanged for very long are not good.
Jim Akiba
domain owner - bostonbiodiesel.com
On 1/11/08, sam mccarthy <sfcompost@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey all converters and convertees out there, just had to throw my two cents in the ring.
> So far it seems most of the points to consider have been. I would add though, in my mind, the one thing the diesel allows that the others don't is the use of biodiesel fuel. I realize that while ethanol isn't gasoline - read Oil, Bush Cheney Iraq and all that- ethanol is, and will be for a long time to come, made of the most inefficient feed stock-----corn.
> The biodiesel I use in my Skidsteer loader to make compost is made of waste vegi-oil and currently goes for $3/gal. The skidsteer is a Gehl with a German-made Duetz direct injected turbo-diesel (TDI just like the VW TDI I'm considering putting in place of my jetta inline 4 currently in my 81 Westy) and it runs better, starts better, uses less fuel, and even has pleasant smelling exhaust!
> I hate diesels too, when I'm behind a big pickup and the exhaust makes my eyes and my throat and my lungs sting. But Biodiesel solves that, and anyone who comes to my yard and gets a whiff of the loader can't help but smile and ask what's going on?
> Currently I don't make my own bd but it isn't that hard to do if you have some time to build the brewer or $ to buy one.
> But back to the point.
>
> I don't think there will ever be a perfect engine conversion for the vanagon. Just choices. I mean, just consider the arguments over what stock engine vs. other stock engine is best when the factory puts more than one in a car.
>
> I like my inline 4, 2 liter vw engine just fine. At about 115 to 120 HP it gets the van moving better than the wbx, gets 23 to 25 mpg at 75 mph and 22 in town. Will go as fast as any traffic, but still have to downshift into 3rd on steep climbs more than I'd like, but it makes a great van engine.
>
> All that I've heard about subie motors and now, lately with all the firing back and forth here, the zetec sounds great too. But for me I just feel its time to kick the oil habit as much as possible and the diesel can do that.
>
> Just so you don't think I'm nuts for swapping a perfectly good engine, my 81 westy was rear-ended recently and with the insurance $ I'm working on a newer body. My advice? keep records of all the $$ you spend on your conversion as it is very difficult to get the insurance company to consider the added value to the vehicle when you build it instead of buy the conversion. Maybe even when you buy it!
>
> btw does anyone have a pair of diesel vanagon engine cradle bars? mine were bent in the wreck. I have a good diesel radiator as well as other 81 parts.
>
> Sam in Santa Fe
> 81 westy,
> 90 carat
> 84 gl parts/storage
>
| 
