Date:         Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:08:05 -0700
Reply-To:     Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Subject:      Re: 2.1 heads
In-Reply-To:  <858558.96371.qm@web112014.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

Something was bothering me about the comparison of VW and Subaru
engine management systems and I couldn't quite put my finger on it
until John's post....

Why are we making this comparison?  The waterboxer engine management
system works perfectly well managing a 1.9 or 2.1 liter Volkswagen
water-cooled horizontally opposed four cylinder engine. If I put a 531
cubic inch Donovan motor in my 1967 Chevelle, I certainly don't start
complaining about how the Delco ignition and Rochester carburetor that
Chevrolet supplied to feed a 283 were a poor design choice on General
Motors' part since they are obviously so ill suited to feed my state-
of-the-21st-century-art small block.

VW designed a system.  That system works amazingly well.  Change the
parameters outside the engineer's design and it is NOT the design
engineer's fault that things no longer function optimally. Engine
management system is not adequate for a 200 cc displacement increase
and a 2 point compression increase? How is that VW's fault? Carry it
back to the 'engineer' that did the design work for the 'system' you
ARE working with.  Have that 'engineer' determine the solution for the
shortcomings in HIS design. Implement that solution. Problem solved.

Simple, huh?

Jim


On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Anderson wrote:

> Actually although I don't recall exactly I believe it was '85 when
> the GTI got knock sensor ignition, and certainly all VW inline 4s
> (in the US market) had it within a couple of years.  I think
> probably VW didn't want to take the time with the relatively low
> market (even worldwide) waterboxer which they probably knew they
> were abandoning soon anyway by then to bother.
>
> --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM
> > wrote:
>
> And also how sometimes, you can't quite get from 'here' to 'there'
> without
> higher technology, like much mo' betta electronic engine management.
> Waterboxer fuel injection is quite crude compare to
> say .........what Subaru
> has with their 2.2 engine starting in 1990.