Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:54:04 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: How To Choose YOUR Engine Conversion
In-Reply-To: <BAY152-ds7E2AB61C48A5D13C352B4A0990@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you really think this through the real problem with the Water boxer or
> Vanagon reliability is the support systems.
I enjoy thinking about this problem. If the primary goal is to keep
the van running with the lowest risk of a showstopper, and if by "real
problem" you mean the most important or fundamental problem in doing
so, then I partly agree with you. I think engine management is
overlooked and is often the source of problems. In fact this is
exactly why Bostig came to vanagonland.
Brady bought a big valve Boston Bob engine in 2003 or 2004 for about
$4k. It lasted 18k miles. It did so not because the rebuild was no
good, but because of engine management failure that caused
overfueling. It was running rich enough to blow black smoke and get
abysmal mpgs for 500 miles or so, which gas washed the cylinders,
diluted the oil with gas and put the equivalent of 300k miles on the
internals. It was a failure of engine management combined with
operator information failure, that allowed the condition to last for
long enough to result in the damage.
If you want you can pick out another level of granularity into "engine
management" and drill down to ID the combination hardware failure (O2
sensor) and the strategy/software failure (closed loop fuel trims are
allowed in excess of +/- 50%, limiting it to 10-15% would have
prevented the gross overfueling). You can also move along the hardware
failure timeline and say the O2 sensor wasn't replaced according to
maintenance schedule, so therefore the most important problem is
operator information in the form of maintenance and care... but I
think the point is that it's usually a combination of things, and they
all need some consideration. I agree that engine management is
overlooked in vanagonland. But it isn't any "more" important than any
other link in the chain (although it certainly can be). If any link
breaks the chain breaks. I would however agree that it is the most
important problem if your goal is to run a waterboxer.
>The Zetec is nice that there are
> some protection features built into the computer and it is a modern engine
> and control package but if the 20+ year old support systems are still there
> she may still have to walk home.
That's exactly right, if you lose your ignition switch or your battery
is dead, it doesn't matter what you have in there. The point is to
use resources on each link in the chain up to the point of diminishing
returns for that link. That point varies individually for each link
for each van. It will also be affected by the operator's information,
some being more impacted than others. To make it more complicated, the
point also moves over time for some links. Modelling all the links to
determine where the diminishing returns begin for each and iterate
through improving solutions up to that point that you hit it for that
link is a way of trying to get it right. Modelling the links can be
replaced by trial and error as well, but people don't like that method
if they are the ones getting the errors.
>From years of experience especially with
> today's lubricants engines are healthy or not. A very high mileage engine if
> healthy is a well-tested engine and should continue to be used until there
> are indications that it needs work.
I agree with the spirit of the statement, no sense in replacing
something perfectly good with utility yet to give. But whether I agree
with the statement completely depends on a couple things. I fully
agree with it if we are talking about a van that belongs to you, me,
Brady, Don, Neil, etc... I would not agree if the van belonged to my
mother (sorry ma).
She simply wouldn't have the information needed to judge when
something is going to need to be addressed lest it become a much
larger issue. So problems could manifest themselves in majestic
cascades of failure (some are truly sculpturework examples of Murphy
and his law) or sudden catastrophic style failures. Not to mention
being costly, esp if long distance towing is involved.
Indeed sometimes "indications" of needing work are simply not enough
either. More common than anyone would hope is the old tactic of sudden
power losses being countered with mashing the gas pedal to compensate.
Likewise, what should be the response to complete lack of an oil
reading on a dipstick with a massive puddle of oil on the ground
beneath it? Why naturally it's to go get some oil at the local parts
store... in the van that has no oil reading. The lack of oil reading
on the dipstick was the indication the engine needed something, and
destruction of the engine was the result. Sometimes indication is not
enough to prevent failure even for an engine that should have a long
life ahead of it.
>No knocks, smoke, good compression and
> oil pressure, keep on driving. For the water boxer, pop a head gasket,
> pretend you are paying someone to do a water pump and timing belt with
> tensioners on many modern cars. The cost is a about the same.
For some engines that's true, for others it's the opposite condition,
you don't need to pay anyone to do any of it but if you choose to it's
still less $$. If changing a water pump is little more difficult or
time consuming than doing an oil change, whether you do it yourself or
a mechanic does it it's going to be faster and easier or faster and
cheaper. If the engines and parts are everywhere they will be cheaper
too. Besides even if the cost aspect was the same, they still aren't
really equivalent. Head gaskets are more likely to reoccur at less
than the original interval or stress level of failure as a result of
it having required replacement/being replaced, whereas a timing belt
or water pump replacement isn't.
>Now imagine if
> you kept the engine and it ran to 250K. What could you have done with the
> money used for the Zetec? Now if the engine is gone and you have to replace
> it anyway now you just need to consider the up-charge.
There are plenty of people that have done just that, and saved
themselves huge amounts of money and spent it on travelling. There are
also plenty of people that have diligently maintained their original
setups, and ended up throwing good money after bad. Only after they
have already either spent the equivalent of the cost of a conversion,
or more usually about half (if they lose a rebuild fast), they then
spend the money on the conversion. This is just over 40% of our
customers anyhow. The question is which one will a given person be?
Unfortunately the person in question is usually not in a great
position to make a truly accurate guess as to where they might end up
and how they'll have fared in terms of total time, effort, and money
invested. Also remember that if the engine goes "on it's own time"
the costs can be huge both in money, time, and timing... I think the
timing for replacing or maintaining an engine is best done on the
operator's preference, not the engine's as it the lower risk of timing
related cost overuns.
Jim Akiba