Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 14:13:22 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: 1988 Rebuilt Engine Stumbling at various RPM levels2100-2300,
3400- 4000r...
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
oh man,
do we have start a big debate here ?
I'll just say .........
the waterboxer is most obviously and purely a converted air-cooled design.
If they had any brains,.......the would make the bottom of the head flat
......
make the deck of the block flat, and put in a 'real' headgasket,
not metal rings and rubber o-rings that get brittle and hard and can't seal
anymore after a while.
the waterboxer is the ONLY mass produced van or car type engine anywhere,
with that silly set up on it.
don't get me started - that outer rubber water retention gasket - how well
that is compressed depends entirely on the dimensions of the head.
I saw one pinch and leak on an AMC head after about a year in service.
I checked with EVERYONE about how that could have happened.
finally ........a VW dealer tech told me ..........you put the head on
without the gasket, for a test fit, and measure that gap, if it's too small,
or too large, you try another head !!!
Standardized car parts were invented in the US in about 1928 or so.
Prior to that, like guns at the time, each part was individually fitted. It
was a big, big deal when Buick or whoever it was, drove 3 cars to the World
Expo way back then, tore them all apart, mixed up the parts, and assembled 3
running cars.
SO.........for the heads to be a variable in dimension, to the point where
some heads will pinch the rubber gasket from squeasing it too hard, and
pinch the rubber gasket, causing it to leak, and some heads won't squeeze it
enough ...........and then they leak after a while.,
I have one AMC head that sits on the block tilted ......
rubber water gasket gap is 3.5 mm on one end, 5.0 mm on the other.
Care to buy that head ?
Seeing the price of new AMC heads, ......I can give you a fine deal on it.
At the machine shop .............If I ask them to surface where the head
sits on the barrels, which determines how the head relates to the outer
water gasket...
they can't reference off the combustion chambers where the metal rings go -
they can only reference off the top of the head, where the valve cover goes
.......
so they really don't have a very good way to get the head back to correct
spec.
furthermore .......that distance, I call it the 'step distance'
..........the distance from the metal ring surface in the combustion
chamber, to the flat bottom of the head - that's a critical distance. It is
not stated in the Bentley book what that distance is.
NO OTHER car goes through baloney on the head and head gaskets like the
waterboxer does.
Most heads - you can surface the bottom of them nicely. You can do that a
couple times usually.
In any case, it is squeezing down very hard on a well made, flat 'solid'
head gaskets.
there are no 'headgaskets' per se, in a waterboxer engine.
there are metal rings that seal between combustion and coolant .........and
there are very small green o-rings to keep coolant away from the metal
rings.
It can not work that well that long, even though sometimes a few get to
250,000 miles. That's the exception, by far. And I wonder if the bottoms of
those heads are not pretty corroded by now.
why would anyone get bothered if someone points out the weakness in various
designs ?
I'm glad they need attention like they do,
cause if they didn't , we wouldn't get to help each other out, and have all
this fun.
there's a tech bulletin on it even !
yeah, I just stumbled across VW tech bulletins the other day, online.
I wanted to see the part numbers for the AFM anti-vanagon syndrome Adapter
Harness...........to see if 2.1 and 1.9 use a different one or what. ( all I
saw this time was that that part is for 2.1's .....but I have seen reference
to one for the 1.9 also ) ....
pretty sure on that list ...........I saw something about waterboxer
headgaskets.
Additionally ...........even after vanagons were out of warranty, if you had
a head gasket issue, and you nagged VW of America enough ....
they would help pay for your repair .......which amounts to admitting that
it is a weak and fundamentally not really up to common standards design.
you know .....?
one guy said he had 250,00 on his 1.9 .......and had done the heads 2 or 3
times.
You don't hear me saying anything about the bottom ends of 1.9's do you ?
no .....because those are a good design and last nigh forever.
the same can not be said about the joke 'head gaskets' however, not at
all.........................., despite the fact that a 'few' waterboxers get
to high miles on their original heads.
but hey........it's all fun !
so what is it ?....
do people take it PERSONALLY if I point out the weakness or inherent
challenges of various designs or systems ?
what I think it 'must' be ......is that they know in the back of their mind
that......
there are 3 big vanagon things I can think of off the top of my head that I
think are inherently 'challenged' ........like they have to be just right to
work, or they can't even work that well in the first place, ..........and
people who own those .......they must know in the back of their minds that
there is a weakness......
which they happily deny or overlook, and when someone reminds them of what's
true about those things, it bothers them, because actually .....
they're a little bothered about it themselves, but they don't want to
acknowledge that it will cost them money that would never happen with other
designs..........
and they don't really like that.........so their convenient denial gets
threatened if someone points out a weakness.
I just find it fascinating, and where I am always coming from is,........I
want all automotive things to really serve the consumer really well, and not
beat them up financially, or beat up the people who repair them either.
I admire sheer durability and reliability more than anything.
There are things in the automotive world made so fundamentally well-made,
that you NEVER even think about them..........even if you own the car
300,000 miles - certain brands, certain systems ........they just never ever
fail. I asked my machine shop if they ever get Nissan engines to work on -
the primary answer was 'nope'. That kind of thing - that's what I admire
and seek to create whenever possible.
If I were to design a car, it would go that far easily, and be hyper easy to
work on, and go and handle real well.
thanks for the note guy !
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl" <tdiguru@WESTYVENTURES.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: 1988 Rebuilt Engine Stumbling at various RPM levels2100-2300,
3400- 4000r...
> Pretty gutless torque-wise, better to use a 2.0 16V if you were to go to
> all that trouble.
>
> "Joke' head gaskets? C'mon, Scott. ;-) Just like other cars, some hold
> up well, some don't (especially ones that received no maintenance). I've
> serviced plenty of Vanagons without gasket issues, up to as high as 250K
> and no leaks. For the relatively low compression they hold up as long
> as they aren't abused or subjected to lack of maintenance.
>
> Karl
>
> Scott Daniel - Turbovans wrote:
>> of the 1.8 jetta gas engines I've seen in vanagons .......
>> I did one, and have worked on and driven some others.
>> power is 'ok'............the engine is smooth .......
>> but ...............an 8 valve 1.8 does not have significantly more power
>> than a waterboxer, as far as I know.
>>
>> it does have a more bullet proof block and head though. No head gasket
>> issues.
>>
>> I picked up an 87 Jetta 16 valve DOHC 1.8 .
>> 123 hp at 5,800 rpm.
>> I'd sell this engine package - 'the whole thing' , the entire fuel
>> system etc.
>> $ 600 today ...........
>> located in southern Oregon.
|