----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 =
2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Waterboxer Power =
vs
transplants
> "The inline 4 seem like a good choice for a basic =
Vanagon.
It's more
> advanced with knock control, I don't known about =
the
weight, with an
> iron block, my guess is that it's about the =
same or
marginally the
> heaviest among the choices. The power =
is the
same as an unmodified
> waterboxer. Personally I'd =
avoid this
engine in a Westy if converting.
> Why pay the price and not =
get any
more performance. And extra weight,
> would actually =
mean less
performance. The Subaru seems best for a West,
> less hoses =
and such,
less weight, and at least the same power as a
> corrected
waterboxer."
There is more to the inline fours I would like =
to point
out:
The 93-later Golf-Jetta 2.0 is 115 hp @5,400 rpm, and =
136 ft
lb. of torque
at 3,200 rpm.
This really works well in my =
82
vanagon Westfalia, manual trans, compared
to
the inline four =
1.8 I
replaced with this. (100 hp , 109 ft lb torque)
The engine
management system is G-J Digifant ll, and it works reasonably =
well. It
is fairly simple to troubleshoot, and simpler to install than some =
other
systems.
The weight is about the same as a WBX, when you =
consider
that the I-4
doesn't
have all the peripheral tin & =
tubing that a
WBX has and furthermore, it is
the same weight as the Vanagon =
Diesel, or
the SA I-4, both cast iron
blocks,
so it is within the =
original
design standards.
Inline fours are higher revving =
than the
WBX, therefore it has greater
acceleration than the WBX.
I =
would
love to prove this to anyone by offering a test drive. I have =
driven
both the 1.9 and the 2.1-115 HP is the reason I can out =
accelerate a WBX
Vanagon.
Some listmembers are planning to do a =
conversion like
mine after going for
a
test
ride in mine recently, or =
trying to
catch me on a mountain pass.
It is a stock engine, and I =
have ridden
in a Vanagon that a friend has
installed a 95 Jetta engine with =
the
stock Motronic system-no standard WBX
can touch Ralf's =
Vanagon!(formerly
Diesel)
Mine will do 75 mph in third gear @5,250 rpm. I have =
ridden
in a Westfalia
with a Corrado G60 engine that will do 75 in =
second!
Certain I-4 engines and mods made to them, can dramatically =
increase
the
HP/torque ratios.
The WBX does still have better =
torque
at lower rpm, but not any longer for
those of us who can find =
them.
The new 2001 Golf-Jetta 1.8 turbo-150 HP and close to that =
number is
torque
@1950 rpm! How is that for low-end torque?
Maybe in =
two to
five years we will have a junkyard supply of these.
I have =
to agree
that the Diesel version conversion has more hoses. But
these =
do not
present any sort of problem.
I have worked on the WBX, and =
the
diesel/gas I-4, and the latter is
definitely more accessible =
with less
junk in the way. It is even easier to
get to things than in a
Golf/jetta.
The 93 and later I-4 engines have another =
great
feature to enhance
longevity
and HP-oil spray nozzles that =
cool the
pistons.
This was one of the main reasons diesel truck =
engines were
able to get
bigger
without burning up.
The 2.0 =
should be
able to outlast the 1.8 I-4 in a vanagon.
Of course, they =
don't blow
head gaskets, have eliminated old-fashioned
pushrods. =
You can
get adapter kits for the WBX Vanagon just like for the Subaru, and =
you
can keep it all VW.
Or, you can aquire a Diesel vanagon or =
its parts
to make your own kit. Or
of
course, the Tiico, which has =
even more
hp(118).
It will cost more, but take less time. My first =
conversion
took three
months,
every day after work. it only cost 1,500. =
Robert Keezer
1982 Westfalia 2.0 Golf lll "Warmerwagen"
Seattle