Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:52:58 -0700
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: DJ Compression Ratio
In-Reply-To: <5ebe10a0806241440t298defc6i5c8ed321f62946aa@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Cris - lol.
I hope you are half sincere about the Soobie comment !
scott
Chris S wrote:
> Sheesh, Scott that was not picky at all!
>
> I just love how you voluntarily sprinkle us with your Subaru enthusiasm.
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Scott Daniel - Shazam
> <scottdaniel@turbovans.com <mailto:scottdaniel@turbovans.com>> wrote:
>
> for the sake of technical pickiness,
> let's say it would be more kosher to say there's a big difference
> btween a CR of 10 and 9.7 to 1 .................
> IF.........there is proper and even semi-radical valve timing and
> cam profile, quite advance ignitioin timing, and very inhanced
> intake and exhaust systems, and all that .........then, yes, 9.7
> vs 10 is a significant difference.
>
> giving only two changes that I know of ........the CR and the fuel
> and timing mapping in the ECU..........*nothing* else is much
> differnt......same lame looking intake runners ( look at some
> subaru engines, particularily the DOHC 2.5 for some nice obviously
> flow-enhanced intake runners ) ..........*not to mentioin* hokey
> two valves per cylinders and PUSH RODS !! ( what are 'push rods'
> ???? ..........and 'rocker arms' ???...........are those ancinet
> things associated with 'points'........whatever those are ??
>
> Think you get my point - given how ancient and crude the
> waterboxer engine is........the dif between 9.7 and 10 to one CR
> is nothing basically.
>
> More : ( I do get carried away - following is just 'more' about
> 'how to get there' engine performance and fuel economy-wise )
>
> and besides...........
> without KNOCK SENSOR ignition ........how can the engine even be
> really 'smart' about how much power it can produce ? It can't.
> I don't think many people recognize that knock sensor ignition is
> a feedback system - the ECU constantly pushes the timing as much
> as it can.......and gets feedback from the knock sensor when
> timing is 'too much' - conseuqnetly it's opptimized constantly
> according the whatever ignition curve mapping the engineers put in
> the ECU>
> with old and fashioned distributor that either ( 1.9 wbxr )
> depends on centrifugal and vaccum mechanical devices to make the
> timing 'about right, roughly' most of the time........or as in the
> 2.1 ignitioin timing is determined within the ECU -but STILL
> ..........it's guessing at what is about the right timing for all
> rpm's, loads etc. - without a feedback knock sensor
> ..........Ignition Timing Curve is just like A CARBURETOR - it's a
> crude approximation that gets something within the broad ball
> park of what would really be optimum.
>
> If I was going to 'invest' time in trying to get more out of a
> waterleaker vanagon engine ( and you WILL NEVER GET PAST Push
> Rods and Two Valves per cylinder - though there's been at least
> one air-cooled drag racing VW Bug engine with subaur 4 vavle OHC
> heads put on it ).........
> If I just 'had to' try to get the most out of a waterboxer engine,
> in the electronics dept. I'd try an aftermakret tunable engine
> managment system.
> Links is one. Expensive.
> But then you hook up your lap top to your ECU and you prgroam in
> the timing and fuel mapping that you want, even boost if you have
> a turbo.....all of that.
>
> and BESDIES Again - you will never get past the JOKE 'head
> gaskets' that a waterboxer enigine has, and will ALWAYS have.
> it is PURELY AN ADAPTED AIR-COOLED VW ENGINE.
>
> I love what Pual G. said when he was here- we were ponidering our
> amazment of how difficulut a water pump is to do on a waterboxer
> with the engien in the van...........like they sure coulda made
> that easiier if they really wanted to ! - and it's the main part
> that wears the fastest too- 70K miles is all you can really expect
> for sure out of a w. pump on a 2.1 wbxr engine - he
> said.................
> "VW gave the engineers 30 days to come up with a watercooled
> vanagon engine. " !!
>
> THAT FITS - oh does it ever.
> Subaru Engineers..........and all manufacturers check out what the
> other manufactureres do ..............in 1990 when they were
> coming out with the Subaru EJ22 engines - which is just a
> BEATUTIUFAL piece of automtoive and motor engineering
> ............I'm sure after work at the Saki Bars they just laughed
> themselves SILLY over how much the waterboxer engine is a patch
> job and 'emergency upgrade' to VW's traditionial pushrod Bug
> engine layout.
>
> I 'do' waterboxer engiens all the time - cause I get them
> easily..........cause they're around - I don't hate them........
> but if you really wanting something enhanced and very worthwhile
> that goes better, and gets better fuel economy and is more
> durable......
> and has better throttle repsonse, and HOLDS A SETUP WAY, WAY
> BETTER Than a waterboxer Vangon engine ............
> there are much better more modern engines that will advance you
> light years , and it can be inexpensive too if you do the work
> yourself...........
> I'm, partial to subaru's.........but there are other modern good
> engines too............
>
> you can only get so far upgrading something in incremental steps.
> At some point to really advance you need a whole new 'clean sheet
> of paper.'
> No matter what you do to a horse-drawn wagon - put an engine in
> it,, put a windshiled on it, put disc brakes on it .........
> it can never be a car. you just can't 'get there' without
> stepping into a whole other paradigm in design anc concept.
>
> I have core and rebuild-able subaru engines for sale btw.......not
> trying to push that. One of these days i'll have an extensive
> inventory reduction sale.
>
> What I would do - assuming one has the room for a spare vanagon
> ......and assuming one doesn't have 10 grand to just drop on a
> Soobie conversioni................get some totally beater
> watercooled vanagon cheap , .......and get a Legacy Subaru car
> cheap - they go for 300 dollars sometimes - and build up a soobie
> conversioin overtime while keeping your good vanagon for trips and
> so forth. That way you are never without a good running Vanagon.
> And when it's all dialed in, swap it over to your good vanagon.
> Only meant to say - didn't mean to make this about subaru-vanagons
> - ( use some other modern engine , that's fine too ) if you
> really want enhacned performance and fuel economy and real delight
> in an engine ........you can't get there really well with the old
> hardware. it costs more........yes.........that is a problem
> all right - but the reward in the end.......wow !
> Scott
> www.turbovans.com <http://www.turbovans.com>
>
>
> Chris S wrote:
>> So how does it run compared to the stock MV WBX?
>>
>> I'm asking because I have a complete DJ WBX on the way, with ECU, to replace
>> the 1.9L in my '84 Westy.
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Kim Springer <kimspringer@rcn.com> <mailto:kimspringer@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everyone keeps stating that the DJ Engine CR is 10:1, 10.5:1, etc.
>>>
>>> I carefully measured my DJ engine and it was 9.65:1. MV is 8.65:1.
>>>
>>> If you want to round up to 10:1, so be it, but, when it comes to
>>> compression
>>> ratios, 9.7 is a long way from 10.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1516 - Release Date: 6/24/2008 7:53 AM
>
|