Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 21:01:09 -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: Why no bolt-on HP upgrades to the 2.1 WBX?
In-Reply-To: <CAEuQn0YBn87KEKUHWiSuzT-ehBRDP+nCmXysj=0_nW6-UN-50Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I'll give you an example of one ..
Chris Corkin's ( tencentlife on thesamba ) ..
his 'better 2.2' has a mild cam and he runs headers on them ..
so 3 performance enhancements that I am aware of ..
increased displacement, a little better cam ..
and an extractor type exhaust system ...
( which I don't recommend ) ..
didn't get to drive it much as the van wasn't registered I put it in for
someone ..
but there's one example.
2.1 liters is plenty to work with.
there are 2.0 liter 16 valve VW inline fours pushed to 400 hp with
turbocharging and other enhancements.
ECU's are worked on ..
though I am driving a suppossidly chipped one on a Digifant 2.1 system ..
and the only thing really different about it is the fuel pump is on any
time the key is on, which is unsafe. It doesn't really go better.
there is another VW engine that never was able to repsond to performance
upgrades much, according to articles I have read..
the audi engine in the Porsche 924 ..
not much is gained on those I don't think, and the market would be
pretty small too I'd think.
Yeah, why doesn't someone make better flowing heads say for waterboxers. ?
I saw a drag racing Bug engine, in a VW Bug ..in the UK..
guy put 4 valve subaru heads on it, OHC too. Ran real well.
a few waterboxers have been turbo-ed ..not with any outstanding results
I don't think though.
On 5/23/2012 8:31 PM, Roland wrote:
> Ok, so it is now Thursday in Osnabruck, Graz, and SA, and it is the day
> before a long weekend, and many be going splittin' for the weekend, and
> worried this message may be deemed something that should wait until Friday
> but....maybe it is ok to ask.
>
> I was wondering why there are no HP upgrades to the 2.1 WBX. There are so
> many other engines that all have upgrades -- intake flow enhancement,
> exhaust headers, sparkin' plugs, reworked heads, super charger kits,
> lightweight rods/pistons, larger valves, and (oh my!) nitrous?
>
> Anyway, I can't recall any performance upgrades to the 2.1 mentioned here,
> or bolt-on kits sold by the knowledgeable vendors (I've bought from all and
> so thankful they serve us). I have had a few other cars, and essentially
> all have many options to increase engine performance.
>
> it is kinda a poll:
> - the 2.1 WBX was a purposeful, optimized design and maxed out the way it
> is.
> - ya can't do much more with just 2.1 liters?
> - requires reprogramming the ECU which nobody knows how to do?
> - heads are maxed, no flow increase possible, the material is too thin,
> can't tune the head.
> - we Vanagon-ers prefer it slow, nobody would invest in a market that
> prefers to cruise.
> - the owner of 95 HP in a 4,500 lb vehicle would not get excited about 110
> HP in a fully loaded 4,999 lb vehicle.
> - the 2.1 was a compromise, just a 1,500 CC bug engine patched to sell T3s.
> - need to add 2 more cylinders --Porsche got more than 200 hp from it's 2.2
> liter 6 cylinder. (and for the interested over 1,000 hp from it's 16
> cylinder 917).
> - And disclaimer... I know that tencent and gowesty and others offer high
> HP WBX, but they aren't really 2.1s anymore, and they require a full
> rebuild instead of bolt on performance upgrades.
>
> So what is it about the 2.1?
>
> Why is conversion to some other engine, or total rebuild (same cost as
> conversion) the only path to higher HP?
>
> Why can't the 2.1 be improved with some bolt on upgrades?
>
> Thanks
> Roland
>
|