Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:10:23 -0600
Reply-To: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
In-Reply-To: <03b101cbc957$75d25f10$6801a8c0@PROSPERITY>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Some years ago an outfit called SCAT on the left coast as I recall,
designed a fully machined water cooled head for aircooled engines. It
was supposed to really help with heat issues on big built up engines.
Dunno what ever happened with it, but somebody was trying.
It so happens that aircraft with reciprocating engines use a cylinder
barrel that is steel, and a cylinder head that is aluminum. The two are
threaded together while the head is extremely hot increasing the size of
the opening for the barrel, and the barrel is super chilled to make it
shrink to as small a diameter as possible. The two are then screwed
together. The valve train is driven much the same as in an automobile.
This head/barrel arrangement sure reduced head problems - except that
occasionally a head would crack at the point the cylinder was screwed in.
I have often wondered why some combination of that aluminum head/steel
cylinder arrangement was apparently never explored by VW for the later
flat opposed engines. I think a water jacket arrangement could have
worked far more easily than what the WBX's would up with.
John
John Rodgers
Clayartist and Moldmaker
88'GL VW Bus Driver
Chelsea, AL
Http://www.moldhaus.com
On 2/10/2011 1:19 PM, Scott Daniel - Turbovans wrote:
> in a discussion about 'why the waterboxer engine at all' here about a
> year
> ago it was suggested that
> either they wanted to keep a lot of opposed four engine building and
> installing people doing what they already knew how to do ..
> or perhaps union workers demanded it ..something like that ..
> 'political reasons' not purely technical choices about production
> costs, how
> good the result worked out etc....
> I'll at least say waterboxers are a true 'van engine' ..and not a car
> engine
> put to work pushing a van ..
> which is something vw has done traditionally since way back ... ..car
> engine
> in a van it wasn't designed for ...
> something I always thought didn't work too well really.
>
> and they did cheap out at the head gasket/head sealing area.
> I'm sure would have cost a whole bunch more..
> but they could have had a flat deck design, with barrels that sit
> tightly in
> the block ..
> for example....the Renault 16 ( late 60's or 1970 design ) with an
> aluminum engine block has that ..
> steel piston barrels sit down tightly in the aluminum block, with a flat
> deck ..
> and a 'real head gasket' and a flat bottomed head.
> Would have cost a lot more to engineer and develop than their lash-up
> converted air-cooled design ..
> but would have been so, so much better !
>
> I do like that the Original Concept of the VW Bus or Van is ..
> Opposed aluminum rear-mounted four cylinder engine ....
> the waterboxer is that ...just the head gasket thing is a joke really ..
> and Subaru 4 cylinder engines keep that configuration in a Vangon nicely
> too.
>
> and ...since vanagons have more weight on the front axle than the rear ..
> ( not a good thing really )
> maybe they should have put in a nice cast iron block say 2.2 inline four
> back there ..
> that woulda been sweet !
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rodgers" <inua@CHARTER.NET>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
>
>
>> I couldn't say. Why did VW make the WBX for the Vanagon when the
>> inline 4's were already here. That is a real mystery to me!
>>
>> John
>>
>> John Rodgers
>> Clayartist and Moldmaker
>> 88'GL VW Bus Driver
>> Chelsea, AL
>> Http://www.moldhaus.com
>>
>>
>> On 2/10/2011 8:30 AM, VWBrain@aol.com wrote:
>>> why did VW go back to the beetle size rods and bearings with the WBX
>>> engines, why didn't they keep the bigger type4 rods and bearings??
>
>
| 
