Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 12:01:34 EST
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: derekdrew@aol.com
Subject: Alignment For Vanagon Syncro
The following material is being shipped to Joel Walker and to the people
who own Syncro Vanagons on Internet.
Dear Friends,
The VW service manual for the Vanagon was updated in 1990 to include a
different method for calculating the proper alignment specs for the Syncro
Vanagon. Owners of the earlier service manuals for the vanagon will miss
these new specs. The specs are contained on page 44.3a of the service
manual. If your manual does not contain this page and these specs, you will
not have the updated information on how to correctly align your syncro.
If you rely on someone else to select the proper specs for the Vanagon
Syncro, you have a problem as well. This is because the company that makes
almost all alignment machines in the country, the Hunter company, put in
the wrong specs for the front of the Vanagon Syncro. I actually located
the clerk in Hunter who misinterpreted a symbol in the Vanagon repair
microfiche and who admitted he made a mistake. Over time--a very long
time-- he said he would try to get the specs on the Hunter machines
corrected, but he admitted that in the mean time repair mechanics around
the country would be setting the Vanagon Syncros in their shop to the
improper alignment specs.
I recalculated all values and came up with the following specs, which are
proper for the Camper model. If you don't have the camper model, you should
obtain page 44.3a of the service manual and perform your own calculation
as your specs will be slightly less aggressive than these due to the
lighter weight of your vehicle.
If you take your Vanagon Syncro into an alignment shop and say, "give me an
alignment," there is a 5% chance you will get a proper alignment, and a 95%
chance the mechanic will use either: a) the faulty specs in many Hunter
alignment machines or b) the earlier, easier to figure, alignment specs
used before page 44.3a was issued. As a matter of fact, the guy at the
Hunter alignment company told me that the methodology in page 44.3a was
too difficult to input into the standard format of the Hunter alignment
machine computer systems, and so the proper procedure would never appear
on those machines. The proper procedure involves measuring the ride
height of the vehicle and calculating the proper alignment spec based on
that. The measurement is taken by measuring the distance between the
wheelwell and the center of the wheel.
Once you are able to obtain the proper specs, there is another problem in
forcing your mechanic to follow your specs and not those in the Hunter
machines. You have to tell the mechanic that the vehicle has been
modified or make up some story or he will simply ignore your specs and
use those in the machine. One way to force the mechanic to be honest is
to insist on a print-out from the Hunter machine showing your actual
alignment specs after the operation. You can then compare these specs
to those you provide him to check whether he has done the job right.
The alignment is difficult enought on a Vanagon Syncro that there is a
strong possibility the mechanic will use either, a) the hunter specs,
or b) your specs, whichever he is able to achieve first, unless you
beat him up to not do so.
The following specs should be read with a proportional font text reader in
order for the columns to line up correctly. Again, the following is for the
camper model, or other very heavy model vanagons. The rest of you will have
to make up your own chart after consultiing page 44.3a.
The material in this document is copywrite 1994 by Derek Drew, 487 Columbus
Ave. #3R, New York, NY 10024 (212)-580-4459. It may be reproduced and
redistributed for any non-commercial purpose provided proper credit is
given to the author. Contact the author for permission to reproduce in a
commercial work.
=========================================================================
Before giving you the specs, a disussion of how to lift the van is in
order. Since I regularly drive my Vanagon Syncro Camper on rough terrible
roads and bash the underside, I have undertaken to lift it a bit. I lifted
it about 1" by buying BF Goodrich Radial All-Terrain tires, in light truck
size 27 x 8.50 for the 14" alloy rims. (I love these bigger tires, and
they provide excellent handling because the sidewalls are relatively
stiff, but they kill the performance of the motor due to their effect on
the gearing. You will feel like you are in a 1970s era bus again, but I
feel the tradeoff is well worth it for my application).
Another method I used to raise the van is to raise the rear end. I did this
as follows: in between the rear springs and the body of the vehicle
there is a small doughnut sized wedge of about 3/4 inch thickness. I went
to the dealer and bought a pile of these little wedges and put 2 or 3
more on each side of the rear of the vehicle. I am still puzzling over how
to lift the front of the vehicle so right now it tilts down at the front
a bit. Any ideas on how to easily lift the front of a Syncro Vanagon?
------------BELOW IS WHAT YOU GIVE THE ALIGNMENT MECHANIC----------------
=========================================================================
VANAGON SYNCRO --'86-'91
ALIGNMENT SPECS FOR CAMPER MODEL WITH DUAL BATTERIES UP FRONT
^Proper specifications for camper are NOT INCLUDED on Hunter
machines. Use the following.^
ORDER OF WORK
Alignments MUST be performed in the following order to avoid
one adjustment from changing other adjustments:
1st Castor
2nd Camber
3rd Toe
SPECIFICATIONS -- 30-40% laden
----- Left Front --- -- Right Front --------
Min Max. Min. Max.
-------------------- -----------------------
-0.27 +0.40 Camber -0.27 +0.40
+3.8 +4.4 Caster +3.8 +4.4
-0.033 +0.033 Toe -0.033 +0.033
(-0.017") (+0.017") Toe (inches) (-0.017") (+0.017")
---- Front ------
Min. Max.
-----------------
Cross Camber 0 0.3
Cross Caster 0 0.5
Total Toe -0.07 +0.07
Toe in inches: (-0.033") (+0.033")
Setback 0 0.5
---- Left Rear ----- --- Right Rear --------
Min. Max. Min. Max.
-------------------- -----------------------
-0.67 0.00 Camber -0.67 0.00
-0.08 +0.26 Toe (each) -0.08" +0.26
(-0.04") +(0.13") (in inches) (-0.04") +(0.13")
-----------------------------------------------------------
---- Rear -------
Min. Max.
----------------- FINAL
Cross Camber 0 0.3 This page
Total Toe -0.16 +0.52 based on
total toe in inches: (-0.08") +(0.26") measurement
Thrust angle -0.10 +0.10 page 44.3a
=========================================================================
Notes on calculations (for your own use/reference)
1. Calculating front camber spec:
Notes: The front camber spec for the regular Vanagon
peaks in the middle and then comes back down.
However, for the Syncro the spec seems to drop
directly. My figure should probably be centered
around zero. Thus:
+5' +- 20' is a good compromise
Range in degrees is 0.7*.
This translates into:
+0.0825* +/-0.334
This translates into:
+0.4165 -0.2515
2. Calculating the front castor spec:
Set arbitrarily at halfway between published spec
and halfway point.
3. Calculating the rear camber spec:
Empty Full
+0.25 Max -0.50
-0.25 Nominal -1.17*
-0.42 Min. -1.84
Has a 0.67* spread.
So, set this at -0.00 max.
-0.67 min.
4. Calculating the rear toe spec:
Empty Full
+0.125"
-0.041"
=========================================================================
WEIGHT INFORMATION:
Premise: The empty non-camper syncro weighs in at between
3,641 and 4,000 lbs. depending on the model. The max weight
is 5512. The halfway point is therefore between 4577 and
4894 lbs.
My vehicle weighs in at about the halfway point, since I
weigh 4680 empty. Being conservative, I will produce a set
of alignment specs for a vehicle 33% laden.
RANDOM WEIGHT STATISTICS:
TOTAL Front Axel Rear Axel
Syncro Camper
GVWR 5512 2866 3042
Empty 3950
Actual 4620? 2310? 2310?
Pub. curb R&T 4000 1972 2028
Pub. curb C&D 4000
Extrapo camper 4350
Non-Syncro Camper
Empty 3960
Full 5280
Cargo weight 1320
Non-Camper Syncro 2.1 litre
Empty 3661 (3689) 1793 1867
Observed empty 4045 (4109) 1982 2063
Cargo weight 1929
Implied GVWR* 5590
(*meaning empty + cargo)
Non-Syncro, Non-Camper
Empty 3670
Road and Track states that Syncro adds 330 lbs to the 3670
non syncro Vanagon and the camper adds 350 lbs as well.
=========================================================================
TRANSLATING DEGREES, MINUTES, AND INCHES:
Degrees Minutes Inches
0.01* = 0.6' = 0.005"
0.0165* = 1' = 0.00825"
0.025* = 1.5' = 0.0125"
0.05* = 3' = 0.025"
0.10* = 6' = 0.05"
0.167* = 10' = 0.0825"
0.25* = 15' = 0.125"
0.5* = 30' = 0.25"
0.75* = 45' = 0.375"
1* = 60' = 0.50"
Degrees devided by 2 = inches
2* = 1.00"
3* = 1.50"
4* = 2.00"
5* = 2.50"
Inches to Minutes
1.00" = 15'
Derek Drew
487 Columbus Ave. #3R
New York, NY 10024
212-580-4459
Internet: derekdrew@aol.com
========================================================================
Car Care
by Rik Paul
(Motor Trend magazine, October 1994. page 148.)
Navigating the Maze of Friction-Reducing Formulas
One of the biggest phenomenons to hit the engine-care scene over the
last few years has been the wave of friction-reducint, anti-wear engine
treatments. Over the years, we've received more reader questions about
these products than any other car-care subject. It also seems as though
we receive notices of new entries in this category almost weekly. The
main claim of these products is the ability to reduce internal engine
wear ... particularly during the critical cold-start period ...
resulting in longer service life. Some also make additional claims
regarding increased performance and fuel economy resulting from the
reduced friction.
To the average consumer, all of the hype, claims, and counter-claims
can seems as confusing to navigate as a bayou. Part of the prolem is
due to the fact that objectively evaluating these products in order to
substantiate their anti-wear claims is almost impossible without
prohibitively expensive lab tests. Which, of course, provides fertile
ground for exaggerated assertions and inflated statistics. Meanwhile,
public perception of these friction-reducers ranges from miracle
treatments to modern-day snake oils. The truth, however, probably
rests somewhere in between.
One of the common additives found in many formulas is a polymer called
polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE. Origianlly discovered by DuPont in
the late '30s, it's commonly known by that manufacturer's trade name,
Teflon, and is considered to be the most slippery solid substance
known to man. As an engine treatment, it's added to engine oil as
microscopic particles. The particles purportedly bond to internal
engine surfaces, reducing the friction of moving parts, such as
bearings and rings, thereby decreasing wear and improving efficiency.
PTFE's history as an engine oil additive, though, is spotty, due largely
to the fact that not all formulas are created equal. It was first used
for this application in the '70s, but by 1980, Du Pont had decided to
discontinue Teflon sales to oil-additive manufacturers, a ban that
remained in place for about a decade. One problem was that anyone could
... and still can ... buy the polymer in bulk, add it to carrier oil,
and package it as their own formula, without sufficient technical
expertise to make it work. In some products, the PTFE reportedly
separated from the oil and settled in the oil pan. Plus, there was
concern over particle build-up clogging oil filters and passages. Such
problems with these early versions has left a stigma that still lingers.
Petrolon got the current bandwaon rolling about five years ago when it
introduced a reformulated Slick 50 Engine Treatment. The product has
been heavily marketed and is currently the category's undisputed sales
leader. In fact, in '92, it held a 90-percent share of the engine-
treatment market. Petrolon claims that Slick 50 reduces engine wear
at start-up and during operation for over 50,000 miles.
A few years ago, the company also made claims regarding improvements in
performance and fuel economy, but in 1992, the National Advertising
Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus asked Petrolon to
discontinue such assertions due to lack of substantiating evidence.
Although Petrolon was targeted for this review largely because of its
size, the same scrutiny should be applied to any of the products in this
category.
As in most current products, the PTFE particles in Slick 50 are
maintained in a colloidal suspension, in which they are electrically
charged to repel each other. This keeps them from bonding or
coagulating, which not only keeps the PTFE from setting out of the oil,
but also prevents the clogging of oil filters.
This charge is gradually lost, and sources vary on how long PTFE remains
effective. Although Slick 50 claims it reduces wear over 50,000 miles,
others say the real value of PTFE is more short-term, with its
effectiveness possibly beginning to erode after 10,000 to 20,000 miles.
Hilton Oil Corporation, the company that markets T-Plus, another
compound containing PTFE, says that "over a period of time and mileage,
PTFE levels in the engine are gradually reduced." Subsequently, the
company offers a T-Plus Booster to replenish the PTFE.
Until recently, DuPont has maintained a neutral stance on the use of
Teflon as an oil additive, neither confirming nor promoting any claimed
benefits. Last year, however, Petrolon and DuPont signed a technology-
sharing agreement to cooperate in development of new lubricant formulas
and other products incorporating PTFE, as well as the possible
development of new polymers and co-polymers for this purpose.
What about the problem of clogged oil filters? The Fram Filter Division
of Allied-Signal Aftermarket Group conducted a study in 1992 to
determine just this point, specifically targeting Slick 50 and a
competitor named Tufoil. The study found that the PTFE particles in
those formulas freely flow through typical oil filters used on
passenger-car engines, with no danger of clogging. The average size of
a PTFE particle is about 0.2 to 0.3 microns, which is well below the
35-micron pore size of typical passenger-car oil filters. Petrolon,
however, advises that use of Slick 50 isn't recommened with systems that
filter particles 5 microns or smaller.
Slick 50 shares the scene with numerous other products, each with its
own formula and claims. T-Plus, for instance, claims it has 50 percent
more PTFE, while QMI claims 10 times more PTFE than its "nearest
competitor." Petrolon counters that an engine can only use so much
PTFE, just as a human body can only absorb so much vitamin C.
Products such as Tufoil and OEM combine PTFE with molybdenum, a soluble
heavy-metal compound, which their manufacturers claim provides increased
anti-wear characteristics. Meanwhile, a company called Engine-slick
advertises that it uses a unique interface bonding technique instead of
the more common collodial suspension, which "interlocks Teflon particles
together" to provide "99 to 100 percent" coverage on internal engine
surfaces.
Other companies take non-PTFE approaches to the problem. For instance,
First Brands' STP Engine Treatment uses a formula it calls XEP2,
composed of various agents, which is also claimed to bond to internal
engine surfaces. Castrol's Syntec FSX contains a negatively charged
chemical ester that is said to bond molecularly with positively charged
engine parts and uses a 5W-50 synthetic carrior oil. Power Up employs
NNL-690, a lubricant that reportedly changes from a liquid to a solid
(in the form of minute particles) as the conditions change from light
to heavy loads.
So how can you tell what works and what doesn't? In most cases buyers
need to sift through the literature and try to read between the lines;
not exactly a reliable method. So it was with interest that we met
with representatives from Petrolon, who brough stacks of hard numbers
from an extensive series of tests conducted last year. Here are the
details in a nutshell.
The tests were done by Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio,
Texas, an independent facility monitored by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM). Two different tests were conducted at
a cost of about $1 million: a start/stop test and a continuous operation
test, each designed to simulate 50,000 miles worth of operation.
The tests were extended versions of a Sequence IIIE test, a widely
accepted automotive and petroleum procedure for motor oils that
simulates stressful highway driving. Six industry-standard Buick V-6
engines were used for each phase; three were treated with Slick 50, and
three were not, to serve as controls. A 5W-30 SG premium-quality oil
was used in all engines.
The parts to be examined, including piston rings, rocker arms, and
connecting rod and main bearings, were weighed both before and after
the tests to determine the amount of wear.
In the start/stop test, the engines were started, idled for one minute,
accelerated to the equivalent of 50 mph for 10 minutes to simulate a
short trip, and then turned off. A total of 330 such repetitions were
performed. Then the oil and filter were changed (no new Slick 50 was
added), and the engines run for four hours at the equivalent of 70 mph
to flush them. The oil was drained and the filter removed. Then a
series of 500 start/stop sequences were conducted without oil to
simulate dry starts, in which the engine was started, revved to 1000
rpm, and shut off.
In the continuous-operation test, the engines were run for 480 hours at
3000 rpm, which is estimated to simlulate 50,000 miles. The oil and
filter were changed every 3000 miles with Slick 50 added to the
appropriate engines during only the first oil change.
After both test were completed, all engines were disassembled and
measured for wear. The following results show the average reduction of
wear in the parts used in the Slick 50-treated engines:
Start/Stop
Rod bearings .................... 55 percent
Main bearings ................... 34 percent
Piston rings .................... 43 percent
Rocker arms ..................... 22 percent
Average of all parts ............ 39 percent
Continuous Operation
Rod bearings .................... 44 percent
Main bearings ................... 8 percent
Piston rings .................... 25 percent
Rocker arms ..................... 18 percent
Average of all parts ............ 24 percent
Petrolon noted that anti-wear protection was best between 10,000 and
50,000 miles, though there was no way to project within this testing
format whether more frequent PTFE treatments would've given better
results.
According to these tests, Slick 50 provides significant anti-wear
benefits. Many other companies, however, lack the funds to verify
their products' claims to conclusively. Therefore, common sense should
be used when shopping.
* Approach claims of "life-time treatments" and specific percentage
increases in mileage or performance with a healthy skepticism. Even
if better gas mileage or performance is technically true, the
improvements will likely be subtle.
* PTFE is inert, won't melt at engine temperatures, and has virtually
no expansion rate. Beware of claims that contradict these properties.
* If a PTFE product requires you to shake the can, the particles likely
will separate and settle into your oil pan. Avoid these compounds.
* Remember that the anti-wear benefits of these engine treatments won't
provide a payoff until many miles down the road. If you're the type
that gets a new car every five years, then it likely will be future
owners who'll thank you for using an anti-wear product. However, if
you keep vehicles for a long time, then a friction-reducing formula
may be worth the investment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel's commentary:
1. If it is so great, which departments of the government and/or
industry use it? seems like the army/air force/navy would be very
interested in something like this, especially for helicopter or
aircraft engines, or ship engines. what about diesel locomotives,
that basically run ALL the time?
Remember now, we are talking about the same government that spent
several millions of dollars to test if Bovine Flatulence was
affection the ozone layer. surely they wouldn't be 'cowed' by
a little oil test. ;)
2. "Petrolon noted that anti-wear protection was best between 10,000
and 50,000 miles ..." how did they come up with this, based on the
tests that were described? it didn't say that they disassembled the
engine at 10,000 miles. so how do they know the protection was
'best' at that mileage?
3. If PTFE treatment WAS of any value, do you really think that DuPont
would miss out on such an opportunity to market their own product,
especially since they own the patent rights to PTFE (Teflon)?
Something about this doesn't quite fit the standard practices of
large american corporations, does it? :)
4. I remain unconvinced.
