Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 03:52:59 -0400
Reply-To: frankgrun@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <frankgrun@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: 1.9 Wasserboxer differences? (63 kW vs 66 kW)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905250225580.2737@joust.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wasn't watching this thread, but I had also collected the ATZ and MTZ waterboxer design and development papers which describe the evolution of the 1.9L and 2.1L engine designs, including their variants. I thought all were there on Alistair's site. I'll check and add them to the list of archive refreshers if they are not there. At one point I also did a detailed analysis of the brake specific fuel efficiency (bottom line technical efficiency) of the waterboxers, the I4 and I5 engines, the NA and TD diesels including the Audi and Saab versions and finally the Subaru 4 and 6 cylinder versions. That dissertation is probably sleeping in the Vanagon list archives. The point is that those analyses were based on by ever-growing engine technology archive, so all of these designs are there up to the BEW.
Frank Grunthaner
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Farrugia <jfarrugi@UMICH.EDU>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Sent: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:28 pm
Subject: Re: 1.9 Wasserboxer differences? (63 kW vs 66 kW)
Mark?
?
could you expand more on the very different exhaust comment? also the?
differences that you list are they what would qualify as the european?
version of the 1.9 wasserboxer??
?
jonathan?
?
On Sun, 24 May 2009, mark drillock wrote:?
?
> Different idle control, different dizzy, very different exhaust, no O2,?
> and no KAT.....?
>?
> Mark?
>?
> Jim Arnott wrote:?
>> So there's been a bit of discussion on the Diesel-Vanagon lists about?
>> the design criteria for the Vanagon.?
>>?
>> Frank Grunthaler mentioned the engineering data that he scanned and?
>> translated that lives on Alistair Bell's website.?
>> <http://members.shaw.ca/ragnarhairybreeks/vantech1.html?
>> > Amongst the scans was a document that piqued my gasoline engined?
>> interest. Take a look at Automobiletechnische Zeitschrifte article on?
>> the 1.9l wasserboxer engine:?
>> <http://members.shaw.ca/ragnarhairybreeks/technical%20articles/WB19/WB19p1.html?
>>?
>> >?
>>?
>> Compare the graph on page 2 with the similar graph on page 3. What?
>> caught my eye was the flatness of the torque curve on the 66 kw motor?
>> (2800-4400 is essentially flat) as opposed to the sudden drop off of?
>> torque on the 63 kw motor (peaks at 2900 and immediately begins to?
>> drop off). Driving a diesel most of the time makes me very aware of?
>> the value of torque in driving these beasts.?
>>?
>> Does anyone know what the differences are between the 63 kW motor and?
>> the 66 kW motor? Is it black box differences or mechanical?
>> differences? How do I make my US spec 1.9 give me a torque curve like?
>> that??
>>?
>> Thanks?
>>?
>> Jim?
>>?
>?
>?
>?
