Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:26:46 -0700
Reply-To: "Bruce J. Wilbur" <bjwilbur@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "Bruce J. Wilbur" <bjwilbur@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Re: Audi 2.3 l conversion report (long)
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990818205113.00a54250@oz.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steve-
Your'e right, the motors themselves appear to be very similar. Apparently
the Audi's vary quite a bit from year to year(sometimes within year) in
regards to the details and layout of the engine management systems,
manifolds, etc. There appear to be many more wires in the audi harness
than on the quantum. Though the engines are basically similar there could
be subtle differences in regards to the mounts, brackets, wiring,
computers, etc. The five cyl. quantums are fairly uniform. This seems to
make it easier to fit it into each type of Vanagon. A conversion for a
syncro is somewhat different than a 2wd manual which is different than a
2wd auto which is different than a diesel, etc. Add into these differences
the permutations of Audi donor vehicles and apparently it can get quite
complex. It's also much easier to remove the donor parts from the quantum
than from an Audi.
The 2.3 NF engine is also high compression 10:1, so everything has to work
well or you can get pinging. The quantum engine is lower compression,
takes regular gas so may be more tolerant of fluctuations in the engine
control systems, fuel variations, and driving under heavy loads. There
are many people who know more about this than me but these are my
impressions.
Detlev knows how the quantum engine can be modified with a different
camshaft, valves, etc. to maximize it's output. If I remember correctly I
think listee Mark Drillock has a higher performance camshaft in his Quantum
powered van.
Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely happy with my Audi conversion. For my
needs it was the best decision I could make at the time. But knowing what
I know now I would think seriously about the Quantum as a conversion.
Today I would still probably choose the Audi, but it isn't as clear as
before. Each choice of conversions- Audi or Quantum, Eurospec or
Fastforward, Subaru etc. has it's pros and cons. By the way, the latest
conversion Detlev is working on is a custom Audi conversion. The knock
sensor controller works (and tests) fine and the engine runs smooth with
plenty of power. So not all of the controllers are funky.
Good luck with your project. It's worth considering that if you do a
conversion while your waterboxer is running well that you may be able to
sell your motor and brain etc. to help offset the cost of the conversion.
Should you have mechanical problems you'll get a lot less when you try to
sell it. On the other hand there's a lot of truth to the expression 'if it
ain't broke, don't fix it."
Best regards,
Bruce Wilbur
'87 Westy syncro
Steve wrote:
"Bruce:
Many thanks for your post. I certainly didn't think it was too long. I've
been considering this conversion for some time, but still have a healthy
wasserboxer, so nothing will be happening in the near future.
I had been considering the Audi 2.3 or a turbo motor (with a strengthened
transaxle), but your post got me thinking. It does sound like the Quantum
motor is a much easier swap, but I'm curious as to why? Certainly there
isn't that much difference in the VW and Audi implementations of basically
the same motor? I can understand different brackets etc for the
accessories, but am somewhat surprised that they made such a difference.
I guess I'll be spending a bit of time now seeing if the quantum engine can
be built up for a bit more oomph.
Thanks again for your post..
steve
'85 westy
kent, wa"
