Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 1998)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 11 Mar 1998 09:11:01 EST
Reply-To:     GMBulley <GMBulley@AOL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         GMBulley <GMBulley@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Great idea, WRONG motor. was: turbo? supercharched?
Comments: To: NACHTAIN7@aol.com, Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

In a message dated 98-03-11 03:49:26 EST, NACHTAIN7@AOL.COM writes:

<< i constantly see postings for increased power via engine swaps. why hasn't anyone been able to turbo or supercharge their 2.1 wasserboxer? this doesn't seem to be that hard. or does it? it seems that would be the way to get the extra horsepower and torque. well? anyone? >>

Nigel--

(flame-quenching disclaimer) In my opinion:

As you know, a turbo or supercharger indirectly increases overall compression, and also increases the static load on the motor. This combination produces increased stress on the motor's critical parts, so the candidate motor designs for this "improvement" have to be near bullet-proof.

I think all of us will agree: the 2.1 wasserboxer system is amoung the least bullet-proof motor units VW, or any other manufacturer has made. Ever. If we temporarily seperate ourselves from our VW love, we can see that this motor sucks.

Under normal use, the owner struggles to get to go more than 80k without head gasket or fuel management problems. The engine cooling system, designed by Spanky and Alfalfa von Klink, can hardly keep up with normal duties, much less increased load. The exhaust system doesn't usually make it to 150k, and causes one to debate re-financing the home for replacement cost.

Overall, this motor unit is an ongoing maintenance project more than a succesfull propulsion unit. I think VW had a big lump in its throat about the passing into history of the VW horizontally opposed engine, and took it too far with the 2.1. This motor is the unfortunate "weak link" in an otherwise fantastically designed vehicle.

As others have voiced, I remain dumbfounded that VW did not pursue with great vigor the application of the nearly bullet-proof Rabbit/Golf motor for the Vanagon, while they were still stamping out those crazy oil pans for the diesel Van. These engines are routinely supercharged in Rabbits and Sciroccos without much pain.

I've seen turbos and super-chargers on the type 4, but they caused overheating and other reliability issues. Long and short, great idea, wrong motor.

mostly lurking these days...

gmbulley cary, nc


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.