Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:49:15 -0800
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: Diesel vs Gas Vanagons
In-Reply-To: <ac1f198b0801112352u34fcb23fo8f050da84b497827@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
All very good. I'll try to be brief.
For sure power for the displacement ..............what's the term
...........'specific output' ....whatever it is, has gone way up, and the
engine have gotten lighter, less material used. So head sealing is far more
critical in these modern engines for sure.
If the guy's new beetle head job was $ 4K, what was a factory new engine
??? Sounds like it would have to be 6, 7 grand, I'm sure the person thought
they'd sure better get many, many miles out of that engine and car to
justify the expense !! I mean, it's tempting to say 'I didn't want to
buy a new car, I just wanted my engine fixed' ..the implication being that
that's an astronomical amount to be spending on an engine...........at how
many miles ? or years ?
Re modern performance V-8's........i don' follow that much these days.
. . Must be a new world. The one I'm aware of started with hot rodding in
the 40's with amercing iron, and . *any* serious engine was completely taken
apart and rebuilt bit by bit to new specs. Like an engine not completely
gone through down to the bare block could not be considered a real
performance engine in any way basically. I mean heck, there's guys racing
on dirt tracks here in Medford with chevy 350's and they are all taken
completely apart and built up as racing engines - so the idea of not even
taking heads of V-8 American performance engines still does not sound
'normal' to me. but those are 80's era or 90's engines.....about 400 to 500
hp. But they sure take them apart- all the way I do believe. !
Re the head gasket thing ...........I can't even think of a head job I've
done that didn't work out just fine. Older engines perhaps. The newest
engine I've ever done a head on would be 90's something.
I don't think 'skeptical' is a fair characterization. Only two main
things........one, I found the 'it's never as good if you take the head off'
'surprising' .........and the other thing was about why we're not seeing
Zetec conversion people on lists much. Neither of those is about
'skepticism' I respect your work completely, thought I've been clear about
that.
I read the posts saying why btw, why were not seeing Zetec posts.
Still seems odd given how passionate many vanagon owners are, and what a
strong community it is. 'usually' converters are just horny to share about
it, to rave some. You see it all the time. I do anyway. 'I got her running
!!' ...kinda thing. Perhaps it's the bolt-in nature of your system where
there are not giant hurtles to overcome, like a major wiring harness job,
that makes it a bit of 'sure, it's fine' for them and not worthy of shouting
from the roof tops. No drama, thus less raving, perhaps.
I don't have a lot of access to what factory engine assembly methods and
technologies are, or haven't. So until your saying things about it, it's
not been apparent that engines are assembled so much more perfectly now then
in the past. And I could imagine that shop work would be considerable less
'perfect' than factory assembly.
All along I have figured your set up was probably pretty good. And have
never said otherwise. Perhaps you are a little paranoid. I have said that
I'm impressed with your intention and commitment and sure darn expect that
when I do see one I'll be impressed. I expect that there might be a few
things I would do differently ..........but an individual creation will
always have that. Factories build things differently that I might even,
though usually I am learning from their choice of materials and layout.
Oh, believe me, if I see something that I am highly impressed with, I rave
about it. I don't rave about things much at all. Very little of what I see I
completely totally am impressed with. I think there's a lot of schlock in
the world. Nothing bothers me more than sharp jagged edges, something that's
silly hard to get at, something under-designed for strength, lack of any
sealing o-ring or gasket on an air filter.........for example......stuff
I've seen on conversions. Mostly I'm not very impressed, but I am expecting
to be impressed with your engine conversion. I WISH people tried has hard as
you do to 'make it right.'
Whew - " the incumbent ideology seems to usually have an advantage unless
people are actually in distress." I had to read that five times. 'the
incumbent technology'...........that means what's commonly done
now............ok so far..........usually has an advantage. Well yes, people
are resistant to new and different things often. Some vw people think
subaru conversions are an abomination for example. We love them for all
their advantages which includes newer technology and higher performance. I
don't see where a Zetec conversion differs much in that aspect. It's
non-vw. It's a 'conversion' ...........so some people will naturally thing
.....I wont' be able to get anyone to work on it ! .....or whatever. Sure,
there is always resistance to new ideas. Human nature. You just make a
provide a good service or product with easily perceived value, with support
and back up..............should work out fine.
I'm not skeptical. I get asked all the time, and if someone said they
were thinking of a Zetec, I'd say go for I !! But I'd also say if you EVER
take the head off for any reason, don't tell Jim !!! - lol ! ;-)
Smiles, scott
-----Original Message-----
From: jakiba@bostig.com [mailto:jakiba@bostig.com] On Behalf Of Jim Akiba
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:53 PM
To: Scott Daniel - Shazam
Cc: vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com
Subject: Re: Diesel vs Gas Vanagons
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
