Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:37:20 -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
In-Reply-To: <4130.192.168.0.115.1200082155.squirrel@hasenwerk.homeip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 1/11/08, David Marshall <mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
> If you bolted on a supercharger, it isn't a stock engine - period.
I see your point, but to most, engine = longblock... so if a gearhead
sees a blower on an engine, they then ask "is the engine stock?"
meaning "are the internals, head, cam, etc" stock. The answer is yes.
YOU said "heavily modified" which means the opposite of a stock
longblock, in which internals are reworked. An engine with a blower is
not automatically considered a "heavily modified engine", but this is
more semantics. The point is anything more granular than the longblock
is never touched.
> 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.
It isn't whatever as far as you're concerned because you replied to
the thread with skepticism and and a negative opinion presented as a
blanket appraisal of the engine we use, so you do care... your
motives? Not sure.. but the result is useful. It gives me the
opportunity to defend us without just coming around every now and then
and dropping self satisfying spam bombs about how great our conversion
is onto the list.
> 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.
I agree with that statement totally. But what you're implying couldn't
be more incorrect.
> 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.
I agree with you, and nobody in vanagonland is typically the majority
in most anything they do. Doesn't mean it's inherently bad or good,
nor does it mean it's not possible.
> 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.
That sounds good to me.
> The above can be done without a Diesel, but there are few engines out there
> that will do this.
This is boring when I agree with you all the time.
Jim Akiba
