Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:09:15 -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: <ac1f198b0801111104g1d757390yc8b0793ab85c8852@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
If you bolted on a supercharger, it isn't a stock engine - period.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The above can be done without a Diesel, but there are few engines
out there that will do this.
David Marshall
http://www.hasenwerk.ca
http://www.fastforward.ca
Box
4153, Quesnel BC, Canada V2J 3J2
On Fri, January 11, 2008
11:04, Jim Akiba wrote:
> On 1/11/08, David Marshall
<mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
>> That's total
turkey... you're comparing a highly modified engine to a
>>
*stock* TDI engine.
>
> No you aren't. It's a stock
zetec. We've bolted on a turbocharger, but
> the engine is stock,
and quite capable of the power levels we're
> targetting.
>
> How long will a 1 bar gasoline turbo engine
>> last?
>
> It isn't 1 bar, it'll be about 8-9
psi targetting 200hp@4400 and
> 235ft/lbs@2900 of torque with gas.
150k miles is a good target for
> longevity. But anywhere after
100k it's worth swapping the engine to
> another low mile one so
you have another new engine in the van,
> especially since it is
about the same price and same labor as doing a
> timing belt on
the other options. If you want to nurse it into old age
> you
can.. but I'm not a fan of high mileage engines, and don't need
>
bragging rights as to how many miles I have on an engine, less is
> more. To me that need just means the engine is expensive enough
itself
> or labor/trouble to swap it out are high so that it must
be nursed
> into old age or it's value proposition falls apart.
Ours is still
> supported in either scenario.
>
>>Quoting their site: "The first trip to the dyno with the
>> turbo kit prototype" sounds like a mature solution that
has
>> been around for millions of kilometers. :-)
>
> True, but the whole operation is about managing risk no? There
is a
> point in every powertrain's lifecycle when it isn't mature.
What's
> more, we're not designing the engine, just the power
adder system, the
> tune, and the support systems. This sounds
eerily similar to the "oh
> you don't have millions of
dollars so you can't make anything
> reliable" which is
either a pathetic scare tactic, or spoken by
> someone with a
gross lack of understanding of what is currently
> possible with
very little money. The outcome will depend on our
> capabilities
at managing risk associated with the upgrade, and our
> ability to
implement the whole thing carefully. Can anyone do it? No.
> Can
it be done and be reliable? Yes. Can we do it? I strongly believe
> so, but the proof is in the pudding, and backed up by a good
warranty
> from people capable of honoring it. Just like OEMs,
part of what we do
> is find the balance in all of the various
modes of risk intrusion..
> nobody's perfect, but without being
too much of jerk, I'd argue we do
> it better than anyone else in
the space. We do not follow the OEMs in
> there levels of
efficiency(or lack thereof), but exploit them where it
> makes
sense(like not developing the engine itself, starting with their
>
factory tunes and tweak, use common parts etc). It's funny to note
> that in our lifetime as a company we outperformed GM two years in
a
> row.. ha doesn't mean much but it's a funny truth. Eventually
we are
> going to produce an entire vehicle, we're just going a
piece at a time
> and learning as we go, and hopefully we won't be
smuggling coke and
> screw the whole thing up. It's funny, but
others have also criticized
> us for "learning as we
go"... as if that equals high customer risk
> automatically,
which it doesn't. And then the flip side... I'd much
> rather be
learning as we go, than not.
>
>> Repeat after me:
>>
>> - Safety in numbers (if it breaks, have
>> something everyone else has so you can get parts)
>
> exactly
>
>> - The farther I go
>>
from stock, the more I am my own warranty
>
> In your
case true, but not if you have someone else that is doing the
>
development and managing the risk for you like our customers do. I
> wouldn't have sold anyone an R-TDI or developed a conversion for
it
> for lot's of reasons but if you look at problem #1, you would
end up
> breaking your transmission with it. Furthermore, in the
instance that
> you must be your own warranty and if yours is
gone, the risks are
> still lower.. like I said, a $400 low
mileage replacement engine is a
> lower risk proposition than
anything else out there should you need to
> be your own
warranty.
>
> Guys that try to go to the moon don't do it
because they think it's
> safe, and they don't do it because they
expect to die. There is a
> balance in there somewhere, and those
with the ability to collect,
> manage, and utilize the right
information are the ones most likely to
> succeed. If you have no
big aspirations, you have no risk to worry
> about. By definition
vanagon guys looking to convert are already out
> of that
category, it's just a matter of with whom they'd like to
> partner
to increase their chances of success and help them manage the
>
risk.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
| 
