Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:38:33 -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: 2.1 heads
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
Here's why ....
the point is that 'maybe' you can't push a waterboxer too far in terms of
displacement and compression ratio without additional electronic trickery to
make it work really right.
Sorry that wasn't more clear !
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Arnott" <jrasite@EONI.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: 2.1 heads
> 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.
| 
