Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:52:46 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Diesel vs Gas Vanagons
In-Reply-To: <019501c854ea$8045aef0$6601a8c0@TOSHIBALAP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/12/08, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> 'more granular' ...........??
> I think you mean 'more basic' perhaps based on your sentence after that one.
No I really mean more granular as in a lower/deeper finer-grained
level that normally composes a larger whole, but when taken apart
becomes more "granular". A ball of dirt is a ball of dirt until you
throw it at your classmate and it becomes dust on his jacket.
> I'd say if you just want it done and working well with the least effort, do
> the engine swap of course. If you want to have the reward of taking your
> engine all apart and re-doing most of it.....then do that. But the fastest
> easiest way to a nicely running van again is always a 'good used engine.'
Right, and are most guys that are contemplating an engine
conversion(or who could benefit most) at the level where they would
actually find it rewarding? Or would it turn into a
totally-not-worth-it exercise where they learn how NOT to do it
several different ways.
> Of course I don't think the average joe should be digging into their engine
> if it's not 'their thing' . where'd you get that ??
Well we are talking about average joe's I thought...
> I do not disagree with you about the head thing especially. Perhaps we're
> in different worlds, but until you I've never heard anyone say that. I also
> am not involved with small displacement racing engines...........rice burner
> street cars with 400 hp etc. ........perhaps it's from that world . I
> mean, isn't it common to remove a head for port work or valve work to
> increase power, for example ????
No it's from the v8 muscle crowd too. That's why some guys like to see
what they can tweak out of stock heads first.. and compete with each
other in that regard... keeping the heads as the final bottleneck..
then they break into the longblock and go for the big numbers. It's
common to port and polish a head, I've done many, but it's common
knowledge that you're not going to get the same sealing as you did
before you pulled the head.. this is especially true of the forced
induction guys.
> If for my turbo Volvo sedan needs a head job, I sure won't feel like
> it is somehow 'compromised forever' . Much older tech engine of course.
> Might be a factor.
More importantly very low power output per cubic inch. That's the
distinction that might be what you're talking about... while still
true, you may never notice it because the demands on the seal are much
lower to begin with.
> I find it noteworthy that you say that that a re-done head is 'bad' almost.
> You seem to think I'm saying your wrong or silly about the head thing. . I'm
> not. I just find it noteworthy.
For instance, one of our customers also has a new beetle. His timing
belt broke and we have lot's of funny shaped valves.. and kissed
pistons. The dealer was ready to replace teh head for $4k. I told him
look... it's a turbo engine.. it'll never seal the same, and for about
the same money you can have a replacement engine that is factory
sealed. I wasn't about to do a head for him.. I've done plenty of
heads, and done plenty of whole engines.. the whole engines don't have
problems, redone heads (not mine ha) often do.
> Every tech has their own methods..........all good ones do. . What I
> admire is that they HAVE their own methods and beliefs, and get results.
> That it might be different than my method doesn't bother me.
> You know, if a focus owner drives up with a head gasket issue...........i
> or someone else might say 'head job' and you'd say 'new used engine.'
> .............both methods work. If you are adamant that they engine with
> head work can never be the same.............fine. Don't wish to argue it.
> I'm sure your view has great merit. Not saying it's wrong
> either...........surprising. thought.
Keep that in your head.. and lurk on other boards.. this isn't "my"
idea by any means... I'm equally as surprised that you've never heard
it before me.
> I'll say I've never heard anyone suggest it before, but you might be
> in a whole different environment that I am, and I don't know a thing about
> ford Zetec engines. They could be awful after head jobs for all I know. Just
> surprising is all.
No, it's not the zetec specifically, it's any engine. And it's even
more important in engines made in the last 15-20 years which is when
two things happened. One the quality of the factory assembly work went
up quickly, and two, the output per cubic inch went up.. making the
results of that fact more prevalent.
> All right, I see you have great appreciation for factory new things. It is
> after all, the trend in everything for them to be made and then disposed of
> when their life is used up. People don't rebuild computers for example. Its
> always cheaper to just get a newer and better one. It's going that way in
> cars too.
Kind of, but it isn't an appreciation of "factory new things" it the
appreciation of *certain* factory utilized technologies and process
controls that impress me.
> Perhaps this is a factor - ALL the engines I'm ever involved with are 10
> year old technology and have over 100K on them. I don't see 2000 and
> something 15K mile engines at all, tho someday I'll do a later subaru
> perhaps.............so 'it's normal' for me that they're older, or worthy of
> head work say.
I think that's right... although I'd push the date further back than
just 10 years... this is almost identical to what I wrote above...
interesting. That may be it indeed.
> Like with 90's era subaru engines, and 80's waterboxer ones, 600 dollar
> low mile engines are not even an option, so there's no even thinking about
> popping in a newer low miles cheap long block. So it's not even normal for
> me to think that way, given the stuff I deal with normally.
> So I just find the mentality different than what I'm used to, and
> interesting, but certainly not 'wrong.' Very valid, especially with the
> availability and low cost with low miles.
Perhaps I'm too paranoid but as I mentioned this is all new.. this
idea, this capability, this approach. People know you're posts, they
look to you for technical guidance, so if you are a skeptic others are
more likely to trust it as well and feed into the natural
skepticism... so it isn't that I'm particularly offended, but my
response in this situation is as natural as yours. Any idea of merit
should be able to withstand all kinds of skepticism, but it is much
harder to turn it around in people's minds if objectivity is destroyed
by the right(or maybe wrong?) person's skepticism and crystallizes
into another's belief system, the incumbent ideology seems to usually
have an advantage unless people are actually in distress.
Jim Akiba
