Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:13:39 -0700
Reply-To: mark drillock <mdrillock@COX.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: mark drillock <mdrillock@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: '82-2.0 teardown. help me find the knocking please
In-Reply-To: <6bc66ccf0906020813pbdb74eeg43f8c5d40f488c5a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Don, I think the inline 4 VW can be a great and economical conversion
for people to do themselves. It just isn't always sweetness and light,
or a do it in a weekend job. Take your van for example. The 83 diesel
Vanagon tranny and engine mounting parts fit very nicely into an 84 like
yours. This is the simplest case there is for replacing a WBX, if no PS
and no A/C. The 83 DV cooling hoses and engine mounting position make
for an easy fit, pretty much best case scenario, nearly a slam dunk.
But most people have PS and A/C and this makes for a more difficult
conversion if they want those thing connected and working. Most people
have 86+ vans that neither the 82 or 83 diesel hoses would fit the
cooling pipes of.
Most of the diesel mounting parts to be found are 82 type and these are
not a direct bolt up for any waterboxer vans and the hoses are not right
either even for early waterboxer vans like yours. Of course these issues
can all be overcome but they add to the project scope and catch many by
surprise.
In summary, the simplest home VW inline 4 gas conversions are done to
what were originally diesel vans so they fit right in. Then there are a
few other early models they fit into with very minor issues. For the
remainder the list of conflicts and issues grows much larger.
Mark
Don Hanson wrote:
> Good points all, Mark.
> A 'sample of one'...my own experience.. not much of a data base.
>
> I've been lurking around the Vanagon sources for a few years now. Maybe I
> have been giving the false impression that I think the VW inline four
> conversion I have is the "One True Way". Not my intention to try to
> 'convert' anyone. When this subject comes up, though, posting my own
> experience with this particular Vanagon configuration seems like it may be
> useful to someone out there. I know that when I was looking, I found very
> little info about this type of Vanagon, and I searched diligently for
> information and impressions.
> I sometimes hear (off list posts) from others who run this combo..The
> general tone of these posts seems to be something like..."Hey, I have an
> inline gas vanagon, too...But Boy, did I have a nice weekend trip to the
> mountains..." or "Yeah, my Rabbit powered van works good, now let's talk
> about something fun..." So maybe there's not much to say about them,
> really. Or maybe they aren't mentioned much because they DO really
> suck..Maybe mine is the only 'good one' to ever .
> Yes, any engine conversion will likely not be simple. And "30-80k life
> expectancy for a WBX motor?" Pulled that outta thin air. But in the few
> years I've been on Vanagon list I have now 'seen' the same names come around
> sometimes with "Weeping headgaskets, again" on their Subject Line..
> As you said, Mark..there are certain things about the WBX that are not to
> like..dunno, other than what I read because I never owned one..so I deserve
> to be flamed for 'hearsay-based' opinions.
>
> Don Hanson
>
>
| 
