Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 19:58:12 -0500
Reply-To: JRodgers <jrodgers113@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: JRodgers <jrodgers113@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: 2.2 into a 1.9 case
In-Reply-To: <CAJPo2u3xM=r2ZR=5F+0xaRvcGiE2Lq-Z3OpUVhCxcuVRawRgbw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Virtually all aircraft engines have specificed periods of use before
overhaul. Typical older small engines RTBO's(recommended time before
overhaul) was 1200 operating hours, 1600 hours and 2000 hours. As a
private airplane owner - you could legally run past those times - but if
used in commercial operations carrying passengers, etc - those operating
hours - determined by the manufacturer - were strictly adhered too.
The principles of keeping up with wear applied to the Air craft engines,
same as the Wasserboxer - oil consumption records, oil analysis,
compression checks, crankshaft run-out checks. All these things would
tell the tale as two when to rebuild the engine. But for aircraft - as
I said - in commercial use - it didn't matter if all the numbers looked
good. If the factory said RTBOH was 2000 hours - that was it. Pull the
engine and rebuild. An on an engine that would cost you 15 grand for the
job - operators made sure they ran it right up to the limit
John
On 10/7/2013 3:10 PM, Angus Gordon wrote:
> Interesting, especially with two waterboxers torn apart in my barn at the
> moment! What are my odds?
>
> I could also point out that the failure rate for every engine is 100%,
> unless you specify some sort of service life or overhaul period.
>
>
> Angus
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:
>
>> I like that GoWesty gives stats on their engines failures, it is
>> really an important bit of info for customers.
>>
>> "There are inherent risks in undertaking what is already the
>> complicated task of overhauling a VW waterboxer engine—even in the
>> "stock," original form. VW's own waterboxer overhaul program in Canada
>> ended miserably with an overall failure rate of close to 50%. By
>> contrast, only around 5% of GoWesty-built engines have experienced
>> some sort of issue—which is stellar by comparison. However, when you
>> are talking about total engines built in the thousands, even a
>> relatively small percentage of issues produces some extremely unhappy
>> and loud people, many of whom feel the need to spread the bad news.
>> The other 95% with no engine issues whatsoever are mostly... silent.
>> Such is human nature, right?"
>>
>> http://www.gowesty.com/library_article.php?id=1452
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> GoWesty warrants their 2200 1.9 case engine for 48,000 miles or 48
>> months.
>>> You should be able to do at least as well, and keep us posted. Follow
>> their
>>> guidelines as well: http://www.gowesty.com/library_article.php?id=860
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>> '85 Westy, considering engine options while the 1.9 still runs!
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
>> Of
>>> George Laubach
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:49 AM
>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>> Subject: Re: 2.2 into a 1.9 case
>>>
>>> Thanks for the catch, Scott. Not drive shaft, I should have stated crank
>>> shaft....I appreciate correct verbiage as well. As they say in the
>> birding
>>> world, you're only as good as your last mis-identified bird....
>>>
>>> Re coolant changes and radiator, new rad 4,000 miles ago (10 months) and
>> new
>>> coolant since May, and new "half pipes" from TK. I can imagine that the
>>> engine may tax the cooling system a bit more (needle right over LED and
>>> steady). I run Valvoline 20W 50 and premium gas.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else on the list done this conversion? I'm kind of
>> interested in
>>> hearing any counterpoints to doing this conversion; not necessarily what
>>> would be a better motor option, but why this is not a good idea. Total
>>> engine investment (engine parts and labor) = $2500.
>>>
>>> Skip
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Scott Daniel - Turbovans
>>> <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't worry about the studs in a waterboxer ( other than
>>>> corrosion from lack of coolant changes getting to them.)
>>>>
>>>> sure, air-cooled VW's had chronic case stud problems, but never in a
>>> waterboxer that I have heard of.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what is meant by a 'driveshaft' in an 84 Westy. It's not AWD
>> or
>>> anything.
>>>> rear axles ?
>>>> camshaft ?
>>>>
>>>> The heat load on the cooling system will be more than that produced by
>>> tired 1.9 that came out of course.
>>>> If the radiator is original , you may think about that.
>>>>
>>>> Just be nice to it and if it's going to hang together it probably will.
>>>> 1,000 miles without any real engine issues is a good sign.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/24/2012 7:35 PM, George Laubach wrote:
>>>>> Interesting, so extra stress on the head studs. I reused the heads
>> (and
>>> studs), "refurbished" by the machine shop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:25 PM, "Tom Hargrave" <thargrav@hiwaay.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about the water cooled engines but pushing a set of air
>>>>>> cooled cases could make the studs that fasten the cylinders & heads
>>>>>> to the cases strip. We used to install a set of "case savers" in
>>>>>> anything that made horsepower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Tom Hargrave
>>>>>> www.stir-plate.com
>>>>>> www.towercooler.com
>>>>>> www.kegkits.com
>>>>>> www.grow-sun.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of George Laubach
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:59 PM
>>>>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>>>>> Subject: 2.2 into a 1.9 case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I've driven subject for 1,000 miles or so with
>>>>>> satisfaction, learning as I go about timing, rocker arm adjustment,
>>>>>> compression, and brake, clutch, and coolant bleeding, etc., etc.,
>>>>>> etc., I was curious about any potential hazards that I should be
>>>>>> paranoid about as it relates to this arrangement of a 2200cc
>>>>>> piston/cylinder into a 1.9L case ('84 Westy) (longest sentence I've
>>>>>> ever written). Along with the new P/C's I also installed new
>>> driveshaft, connecting rods and cam (and new lifters).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What might your wisdom conject? What might I worry about? I was
>>>>>> thinking things like, well, the air flow, fuel injection, and
>>>>>> cooling system was designed for a 1.9, but now is "managing" a 2.2L
>>>>>> system. Maybe the larger system puts an extra strain on the
>>>>>> components? I've seen no outward symptoms that I can correlate to an
>>> "imbalance".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, care to wonder, perhaps with more wisdom or experience than this
>>>>>> writer/driver?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Skip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> No virus found in this message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 2437/5152 - Release Date:
>>>>>> 07/24/12
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
|