Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:21:23 -0700
Reply-To: Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Engine question just curious (long winded reply)
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR20MB12978CB5700AA66AB1673D82A0450@BN6PR20MB1297.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Child prodigy! I tried to get my son into wrenching for pleasure when he was
in his teens, but no way was he interested. He does help me with the vans
now that he has an '87 Westy, and he's actually pretty savvy by osmosis,
which he needs to be to drive this ancient vehicle. He just has better
things to do, and he has me as his mechanic anyway.
It's funny how many of his contemporaries comment on his van and say they
want one. He explains the reality of ownership very well though . . .
Stuart
From: Dennis Haynes [mailto:d23haynes57@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:50 PM
To: Stuart MacMillan; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM; 'Eric Caron'
Subject: RE: Engine question just curious (long winded reply)
Actually this started as a side gig that is now a bit out of control. I have
a real job by day. I started helping my parents keep the 71 bug and 67 bus
going when I was about 13. Pulled the engine out of the bus for a valve job
before I even had a learners permit. That was 1976.
Dennis
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
10
_____
From: Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 6:53:00 PM
To: 'Dennis Haynes'; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM; 'Eric Caron'
Subject: RE: Engine question just curious (long winded reply)
The good thing about that era is I learned how to be my own mechanic because
I had a lot of practice whether I wanted it or not! Bought a lot of tools
to keep my '65 MGB, '71 Datsun 510 wagon and assorted VW vans (friends' vans
too) running. You did too, and turned it into a profession!
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Haynes [mailto:d23haynes57@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:12 PM
To: Stuart MacMillan; vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM; Eric Caron
Subject: RE: Engine question just curious (long winded reply)
You have a lot of good points here. Consider further though the other engine
options VW had in the early 80's. For 81 there were even some Rabbits with
carburetors. The inline engines were still crude and the Bosch CIS may have
been cost prohibitive. Also, those engines would possibly need more NOx
reduction in the Vanagon. VW was always marginal in the emission controls
deployment. Fuel injection and reduced compression got them out of catalysts
for many 75-80 models but 81 was a magic year for NOx standards. Almost all
cars 81 and later have 3 way cats, (O2 sensors) and reduce performance. The
GTI in 84 was the beginning of getting more power out of the inline engines
with the 16 valve head. Also, back then it was still not common for cars to
100,000 miles, never mind on one engine. I had both a76 and 79 Scirocco.
Later an 81 Rabbit Convertible. The 76 traveled with a case of oil in the
back. The 79 needed a head as the cam wore into the head, (no bearings). On
the 81 I got real good at head gaskets. I could pull the timing belt and
lift the head and get it running again an about 2 hours. Later I had a 99
Passat with the 16 valve motor. Head gaskets until I realized the block deck
was warped.
Anyway, while the Waterboxer has some challenges it was designed to take a
fair bit of abuse and have minimal amount of pollution controls on it. The
O2 sensor operation could have been much more resilient! Head gaskets and
pistons/cylinders can be serviced engine in place and if not for support
system failures they can live a long life.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Stuart MacMillan
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:48 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: Engine question just curious (long winded reply)
We can only speculate on what those engineers were thinking, but as Ray said
it's all part of an evolutionary process starting with the original post WW
II van, which ultimately ended with the radical redesign of the EV in 1992.
Having lived through this era with a '68 Westy and a '78 T2 while waiting
for the Vanagon, I did read a lot about it in the auto mags of the day.
The engine is basically the type 2 aircooled case (upgraded with somewhat
better metallurgy) with water jackets cast onto it, and water cooled heads.
The redesign was done in the '70s in preparation for the 1980 introduction
of the Vanagon, but it didn't go into production until mid '83 while they
(partially) ironed out the head sealing problems. Before that it came with
the 2 liter air cooled from the T2, and the diesel in the US, but the diesel
wasn't powerful enough for the American market and the aircooled couldn't
meet the constantly tightening air pollution regulations in the US.
The WBX design remained the same as the air cooled in terms of bolting on
the heads with studs into the case and a crush ring between the heads and
cylinders, and this required a flexible gasket between the head and water
jacket to seal the coolant, which has been problematic. I had an '84 I
purchased in '86 with 30k miles on it, and at 40k the heads leaked. VW did
replace them under a partial warranty, and those heads were still fine when
I replaced that engine at 250k miles with a used 2.1 I blew up fairly
quickly.
I remember that era as being especially challenging for all auto
manufactures in the US market, but the foreign manufacturers really
struggled. Every year the safety, fuel economy, and pollution requirements
got more stringent, and they produced separate models for the US market.
The Vanagon had its own design and engineering team, and their choice was to
keep the boxer engine alive by making it water cooled, which made it
possible to meet the current air pollution standards (NOx). We might
question that decision today, but they didn't have any other '70s engine
that was a better solution.
One thing VW had going for them was early introduction of fuel injection
thanks to Robert Bosch & Co. The Japanese stuck with carburetors way too
long. I had a '80s carbureted Honda that had at least 40 vacuum hoses
attached to it, and it never ran well cold (too lean). Today you don't see
many cars from the '80s on the road, but the ones you do are usually German,
thanks to Bosch.
The '70's and '80's were a time of rapid change for the auto industry. The
best engine for the Vanagon would have been the Subaru 2.2, but it wasn't
developed until 1990, and by then VW had to abandon the Vanagon because of
the US front crumple zone safety standards, not to mention fuel economy
standards. It was just last year that Brazil outlawed the T2 there for the
same reason.
After over 300,000 miles on two Vanagons and four WBX engines I've now
installed a '93 Subaru 2.2 in my '85 Westy, and it looks like it's been
there since the van came out of the factory. It's a simpler and cleaner
install than the WBX with much simpler cooling plumbing and a better
designed engine control system. The power is amazing, especially compared to
the tired 1.9 it replaced. I can climb hills and merge onto the freeway
safely now, even if the on-ramp is up hill. I'm installing the GoWesty
cruise control to keep from accidentally speeding on the highway. ;-)
Now I need to upgrade the brakes and suspension . . .
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Eric Caron
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 5:13 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Engine question just curious
Hi folks,
This is a different kind of Vanagon Engine question.
I've often wondered why the Vanagon has a different engine then
other VW offerings of the same vintage. If people are putting in engines
from rabbits, and other cars and they seem to work what was the advantage in
having a whole different engine for the Vanagon? Was the engine a money
savor or was it considered stronger in some way for the van? It seems like
they could save money by just using one engine for many cars. It seems like
that is done for many car companies today.
So, anyone know why the water boxer in the Vanagon and not the same engine
as other VW cars?
Or do other VW cars have the same motor in them?
I don't think I've ever heard of someone saying I'm going to upgrade my VW
by putting a Vanagon motor in it.
Eric Caron
85 GL Westfalia
