Date:         Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:17:40 -0700
Reply-To:     Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Emissions, Was: AC While Camping
Comments: To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@q.com>
In-Reply-To:  <BLU0-SMTP70BF83DF7B034211D1EB21A6D80@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

You assume incorrectly Karl.

The WBX started first time every time, always passed AirCare with flying
colours and used no oil between changes in regular use.

However, I swapped it for an engine without rubber water gaskets, without
external (!) pushrods, without rubber fuel lines hanging above the exhaust
primaries, without NLA parts ie I installed a motor from this century with
all that implies - 4 valves per cylinder, 10:1 compression, efficient
pent-roof combustion chambers, steel fuel injection lines, an ECU capable of
learning, and yes, twice the power.  ;)

I'd recommend one to anybody who loves their Vanagon.

Seeya, Jake

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@q.com> wrote:

> Jake,
>
> One assumes that your engine swap was brought about by some weakness of the
> old wasserboxer, making one wonder how close to spec it was running at the
> last emissions check.  Not exactly a fair comparison, but interesting,
> nonetheless.
>
> Karl Wolz
>
> |
> |Dixie needs to go through AirCare before July 9th and I'll share the
> |results.  I'm very interested myself to see the difference between the 2.1
> |WBX and the 2.5 Subaru motor.
> |
> |It won't be an entirely direct comparison because I've swapped transaxles
> |as
> |well but it should be fairly representative.
> |
> |Jake
> |ke.googlepages.com/mydixiedarlin%27
>
>


--
Jake

1984 Vanagon GL 1.9 WBX 'The Grey Van'
1986 Westy Weekender/2.5 SOHC Suby 'Dixie'

Crescent Beach, BC

www.thebassspa.com
www.crescentbeachguitar.com
http://subyjake.googlepages.com/mydixiedarlin%27