Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:19:11 -0500
Reply-To: frankgrun@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Frank Grunthaner <frankgrun@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Exhaust Design, Now Conversion for Function and Reliability
In-Reply-To: <6bc66ccf1002161123h50c066f9n12b70ae9c012476@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan,
I decided to jump in here with a possible thread hijack. I fully agree with your comments about the I4 gasser reliability. Over the years I have posted a number of observations, experiments and modifications all of which are thankfully preserved in the list archives and many of them in carried with much supporting material in Alistair Bell's website. I have also examined (from a mechanical perspective) several Subaru 2.2 conversions as well as the engine and transmission in a variety of Subaru 2.2, 2.5 and SVX automobiles. I 8ave also many intellectual, emotional and physical scars from years of ownership of air-cooled VWs, Porsche's and Corvairs. I have wrenched Fords from Flathead through OHV 6 and many a screaming V8. I have similarly played with GM hardware from the Stovebolt 6 through Buick straight 8's and small block V8's. On the Chrysler side, I have been intimately acquainted with everything from flathead 6's and 8's, through the bulletproof slant 6 to the hemi's and the wedges. On the pages of strange hardware, I've owned or wrenched Packard straight 8's, Kaiser/Continental 6's, Hudson 6's and 8's, a beautiful supercharged Cord 810, a Studebaker Paxton supercharged Golden Hawk, Rambler 6's and 8's, Saab 3's and 4's, DKW 3's, Tanus V4's, BMC MGAs and MGBs, Peugeot 4's both gas and diesel, Renault 4's , Citroen 2's and 4's and Mercedes 4's and 6's, diesel and gas. I have never been impressed with the Subaru engines in the parent vehicle, but found the 2.2 Vanagon conversion pleasant. I have seen head gasket failures on many Subaru engines, burnt exhaust valves, bearing problems and many cooling related conversion issues. I do find the WBX a surprisingly unreliable design and have seen many a perforated 1.9 and 2.1l block - almost as many as I have seen of Ford flatheads and small block Chevys!
As I have said on this list many times, the 1.6l NA diesel was a remarkably reliable engine in my hands. Properly maintained, with careful attention to oil levels, I find the engine remarkably robust when faced with motivating the 4500 pound Westfalia camper. It is pitifully underpowered for American driving conditions. I found its performance on the open road very comparable to my 1967 VW 1600 splittie camper; Only my expectations had risen over the years. Many years ago, I decided I needed more performance as well as an air conditioner, so I swapped our the 1.6 N/A diesel for a 1.8l Digifant gasser. I kept the DZ transmission and never regretted the choice after replacing the flawed 4/4 hub. The RV Digifant engine had several issues to be resolved including vibration and exhaust, but these were easily solved. The engine was designed for serious revs and I have run the unit across the New Mexican and desolate Texas deserts at 6,000 rpm for 10's of hours repeatedly with the AC blasting and it never let me down. With the DZ trans gearing the engine is well suited to hauling the Westfalia around. I put more than 120,000 carefree miles on that combination. On the highway I readily cruised at 70-75 mph from California to the Yukon, from LA to Georgia and Maine. My average fuel economy stayed right at 23 mpg on the highway and hovered between 18 and 20 in town.
The only thing it didn't have was the economy of the diesel. I switched to the TDi for a modest gain in economy but with a real concern for transmission reliability.
However, to summarize, I think the most economical and reliable power system for the Vanagon is the Digifant 1.8L coupled to the base diesel Westfalia DZ transmission. Fo a bit more uumph and a tad more cost, go to the Audi 3A 2.0L engine. All the advantages of the ABA, but simpler and it fits. Use my Digifant injection system. For real moxie and significantly more complexity, follow my Audi 3A low pressure turbo approach. If you have the bucks and the time go TDi. But none of these are as cost effective or as reliable or as much fun as the 1.8L Digifant gasser.
Of course, you can damage the reliability of the combination, by switching to the DK trans or the later WBX versions to reduce revs, but recall that wisdom lead to Socrates taking hemlock! As I have repeatedly and boringly emphasized, its torque or thrust at the tire contact patch that moves the beast. This very heavy vehicle (same mass as a mid 60's Chrysler Imperial) with a very small engine needs gear-based torque multiplication to properly distribute peak engine loads.
Oh well, even the Citroen 2CV could make it to 100kph! I once passed a Cadillac Eldorado on the 110 Freeway in my Renault Dauphine 4CV.
For what little its worth,
Frank Grunthaner
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Sent: Tue, Feb 16, 2010 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Exhaust Design
I am kinda with Dave here. But I have owned VW vans back in my hippy
days. When I began looking for an economical dependable 'augmentator' for
my diesel pickup with camper I again looked to the VW van. I
thought..."Hey, maybe a Vanagon...they seem to be able to keep up with
traffic and are about the proper size and ground clearance for the camping I
do. Maybe they work more dependably than the old aircooled vans"...but
I researched them (extensively) and I see (saw) that they didn't get very
good mileage and people were often having trouble with the motor blowing
headgaskets or just blowing up. "Hmmm" I thought, "Kinda like my old
splitwindow..the undependable motor that blows up more frequently than other
makes of vans. And the gas mileage I see people claiming...I can get mpgs
like that from a Ford or a Chevy, almost"...So I was a bit put off on
Vanagons and looking elsewhere when I spied my current inline VW powered
vanagon for pretty cheap. I decided I could make a 'mistake' for what this
guy was asking and I went ahead and got mine, thinking if the thing blows,
I'll just junk it.
It's not perfect. But it seems to get better mileage than a WBX and it
seems more dependable than what I read about the stock WBX motors do. So I
have a Vanagon and I am happy with it, it does the job. If I went with a
WBX powered vanagon and it blew up...I'd be kicking myself for disregarding
what I read and for buying another VW bus that didn't quite do the job for
me.
Some people are "purists" and are all in love with certain
machines...thinking "Nobody could improve on *this* vehicle, It's perfect
just like it is..totally stock" Others are tinkerers. They immediately
think "I can do better" and start in. Me, when I bought my Vanagon I was
just looking to find a utilitarian van. Since then, I have fallen for the
Vanagon and I enjoy making improvements on mine. But most I enjoy going
outside and turning the key and taking off without a thought about it's
reliability..I enjoy not seeing drippy coolant and getting 325miles on a
tank before I look for a filling station. And when it finally breaks down,
I'll head to a nearby junkyard and get another Rabbit, Jetta, Golf,
Cabriolet, inline motor for a few hundred bucks and 'plug that in' and keep
right on going..
Don Hanson
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@cox.net> wrote:
> Well, Jeff, I own the thing because it is the only camper of its type there
> is, and because I had romantic notions about one back in my hippy days when
> I couldn't afford it. Eurovan doesn't count, not enough clearance to safely
> drive off of pavement, and seems more like a minivan than anything else.
>
> Despise it? No, but I am bemused at folks who seem to have love affairs
> with a particular type of vehicle. After all, it is an object, not a being.
> A difficult object at that.
>
> But maybe some folks fail to see the humor in my observations. After all,
> it is subtle.
>
> BTW, I have already received a number of private emails agreeing with my
> observation, and suggesting that the observation will either be ignored or
> that I will get negative criticism for making it. We'll see.
>
> David Mc
>
> ---- Jeff Lincoln <magikvw@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I mean no offense here - but I cannot think of a better way to word this:
> >
> > I think that the experience you describe had a lot to do with the wording
> > you chose when you were criticizing.
> >
> > I think that a lot of people had a hard time telling from some of your
> posts
> > why you owned a Vanagon at all - and I only say that because your wording
> > really made it look like you despised the thing.
> >
> > Just my .02
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. Seems there is an in crowd that can criticize the
> > > dependability of Vanagons. Others of us, not a part of the in crowd,
> get
> > > jumped whenever we point out the beasts difficulties. We usually are
> > > accused of not practicing proper maintenance, which in my case at least
> is
> > > definitely not true. Some can even criticize the dependability due to
> > > inherent design flaws, and yet whenever one of the "out bunch"
> questions
> > > reliability, those same ones will lay into that person and his or her
> > > maintenance practices. Just sayin ............ .
> > >
> > > David Mc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeff
> > '90 Carat (Grover)
> > '86 (We call this one Parts)
> > '78 Bus (Melissa) Patty's Bus
>
| 
