Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:35:46 -0500
Reply-To: Michael Sullivan <sandwichhead@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Michael Sullivan <sandwichhead@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: DJ Compression Ratio
In-Reply-To: <48616CBA.4060904@turbovans.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Chris...looks like you got your filters workin' :-)
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Scott Daniel - Shazam <
scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
--
Michael in San Antonio
91GL AT 'Gringo'
| 
