Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:17:37 -0800
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: Friday Philosophy: On Community
In-Reply-To: <011301ce0c76$9ed9ef40$dc8dcdc0$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hopefully people realize it's rough on the rest of the engine running
with low compression on a cylinder or two .
I doubt the fuel being injected is all being burnt ..
that fuel dillute the oil, increasing wear on the rest of the engine.
It's much better for saving what's left,
to not drive an engine with lowish compression.
and ....I wonder if it's running really right.
It should do a little better than you describe I would think ..
but with performance and compression that weak ....not really advisable
to drive itI'd say.
1,9's are not 'that bad' ...the auto trans sucks a little power.
I ran a decent 1.9 in my 87Wolfsburg for about a year ..( manual trans )
..it went just fine.
I actually kinda like them as they are a little smoother than the 2.1
with their shorter stroke.
I did have to grind up a long local climbs-out-of-they-valley hill near
me , wound out in 2nd gear once, 85 Westy, manual trans, decent 1.9 wbxr
.....but once I got that climb out of the way it drove the next 200
miles on fast straight highways just fine. Like 65 to 70 no problem.
If you put new pistons and barrels, and rod bearings, and a good
valve job and head gasket job on that engine it would probably work out
nicely. If I find the rear main bearing is loose in the case ..like
when setting up end play ..
I retire that bottom end right there.. If the main bearings are still
decent ..
they can go 250,000 miles with cylinder head jobs every 80K or so.
You'd pprobably find a subaru 2.2 with your auto trans to be just
wonderful.
They are not that hard to do really either.
scott
On 2/16/2013 10:51 AM, Stuart MacMillan wrote:
> With 90 to 100 psi compression in two cylinders I figure I have maybe 60 hp, about what an aircooled 1600 would put out. 130 hp should be just fine!
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> From: J Stewart [mailto:fonman4277@comcast.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:43 AM
> To: Stuart MacMillan
> Cc: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Friday Philosophy: On Community
>
>
>
> Hans of Vanaru let me drive a full Westy with a 2.5 a few years ago, and it was amazing! A 2.2 I'm sure would be equally amazing, maybe just slightly less so!
>
> Jeff Stewart
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Right now with low compression I can't maintain 45 mph on a moderate grade
> even downshifting to second (it's an auto), and semis pass me. Merging on
> anything other than a downhill ramp is difficult. Trying to enter a busy
> two lane highway safely requires about a half mile opening since zero to 60
> is over 10 seconds on the flat, and I'll never get to 60 on a hill. Takes
> all the fun out of driving. I'm confident the 2.2 will be fine, but I've
> never driven one so I don't know for sure.
>
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans [mailto:scottdaniel@turbovans.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 6:22 PM
> To: Stuart MacMillan
> Cc: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Friday Philosophy: On Community
>
>
>
> re " I can only hope the Subaru conversion will make it more tolerable.""
>
> How fast do you need to go ? A subaru 2.2 has 135 hp , versus 87 for a 1.9
> wbxr and 95 or so for a 2.1 waterboxer.
> btw ..if you had an automatic ..they do suck up some power and response for
> sure ..
> far less so with a subaru engine.
> The common Subaru 2.5 is 160 hp ..almost double that of a 1.9 waterboxer.
>
> There's a great test hill on I-5 near me. It's long ...5 to 7 miles
> ...Southbound it gets steeper near the top..
> Normally in a Vanagon you get up good speed in top gear ..like 70 .....hold
> that as long as you can and when you're down to about 55 shift down one cog
> into 3rd gear with a 4 speed manual trans, .hoping you can pull the rest
> of the grade at a reasonable 50 - 55 in 3rd.
> A real dog of a vanagon might be stuck at 45 mhp max on that grade.
> If you're a real power hog ..
> SVX subaru engine converisons ( 6 cylinders, 3.3 liters, 230 hp ) aren't
> done that often these days anymore .......but one of those will go up that
> grade at 75 in 3rd or 4th gear. Easily. They drink a bit of gas though
> .....17mpg would be considered very good.
>
> a Westy with a 2.2 subaru engine and auto trans can return 21 mpg sometimes.
> One guy I know claimed a one-time high of 24mpg at high altitude during a
> very hot summer. That would be rare. But the 4 cylinder subaru engines go
> much better than waterboxers and return the same or slightly better fuel
> milage.
>
> On one recent freshly done Subaru 2.2 engine an 85 Westy ....the woman drove
> that same whole I-5 grade in 4th gear easily, not getting below about 58
> to 60 mph. They go good. Not only more power ....you have 1,000 more rpm
> to play with too. Redline is 6,200 rpm. I never take them over about 5,000
> to 5,500 rpm anyway . Nice fat wide power curve too, very nicely matched
> to vanagon gear spacing.
>
> .........just in case there is doubt that a subaru engine conversion isn't
> pretty rewarding in a vanagon.
> It's not just a little more power ..it's a whole other dimension in
> technology ..
> 4 valves per cylinder, Overhed cam/s , no distributor, knock sensor igntion,
> sequential fuel injection , lots of nice features.
> VRROOOOMM !!
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 2/15/2013 5:54 PM, Stuart MacMillan wrote:
>
> Absolutely correct insight. A community of lunatics that keeps doing the
> same thing over and over again hoping the results will be different.
>
> My kids managed to avoid catching this disease, unlike you! We had great
> times travelling in our '68 Westy starting when they were both toddlers, and
> it continued until they were in their mid-teens with my '84 Westy. Later
> they would each borrow the '84 for their own local trips, but now they
> wonder what I was thinking when I bought my "new" '85 last year, figuring
> I'm in my dotage and should simply be humored.
>
> For them it's now using friend's timeshares, exotic travel, and a once a
> year family camping trip with us in our van, one family in a tent and the
> other in a sailboat moored at Fort Flagler (only place I've found in
> Washington where we can do that).
>
> I don't blame them. I sold the '84 because it was underpowered and horrible
> to drive, and bought an EVC. That was a great driver, but a money pit and
> inferior camper, and now I'm back to a gutless '85 that is horrible to
> drive. I can only hope the Subaru conversion will make it more tolerable.
> If not, maybe the future Ford Transit conversions will be sensible:
> http://westfalia-ford.co.uk/elevated%20roof/index.html $46,000 base price
> in Britain. I wonder what Sportsmobile or Roadtrek would charge for theirs.
>
> Stuart
>
> Jarrett wrote:
>
> ......I'll admit my bias here: I grew up with VW campers, and so I own one
> now. Because I own one, I like hanging out with folks share that lunacy. . .
> .
>
> Jarrett K
> Olly, 89 Westy made up of parts, parts, parts=
>
>
>
| 
