Date:         Tue, 15 Jun 2021 22:45:43 -0400
Reply-To:     Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chris S <szpejankowski@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: inline 4 vs Subaru conversion
Comments: To: Dan N <dn92610@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <CAFdLW6=p_ton6CV+fa4n4ou6qq=sYmqUu8VAK7RVLiGtvRsxSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

We have an ABA conversion with 1.8 heads and Digifant II in two of our Vanagons.  I like them because they seem bullet proof and I never have to worry about them. 

I had a 2.1 DJ-code WBX and that is the engine all Vanagons should have had from the factory.  Smooth, torquey, better MPG than US derivatives. I guess the GW engine is like that. 

I had two other Vanagons with 1.9 WBX engine. The 85 rolled past 200K without ever having been cracked open - original heads, seals, lifters.  I did replace the water pump once.  The 84 had a strong but loose engine.  I replaced it with beforementioned DJ. 

From a maintenance perspective the I4 is easier to work on. Everything is accessible. Timing belt jobs are easy.  Aftermarket higher performance parts are still available. The heads don’t piss on your driveway.  But you better have a solid, professional conversion with a well-built exhaust that is properly hung off the engine or has sufficient flex sections.  

Down side of the I4 is the soft torque at lower revs. On the flip side it redlines at 6400 rpm and I hit 78 mph in 3rd gear. They love to rev.  

VW I4 does not have a balance shaft, so they are lively. You will feel them through the shifter. You will be checking exhaust bolts preiodically. 

So, GW has improved upon the original. Conversions need to be designed and implemented properly (Fastt, Bostig, Rocky Mountain for Subaru or small car. )


Because I turn my own wrenches and have experience with VW I4 going back to the 80’s, that engine works for me. 

Chris