Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:46:02 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
In-Reply-To: <424260.78680.qm@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, this is all great for Zetec !
There ought to be 15 new orders called in by noon Monday after all this !
I'd like try a programmable computer fuel system too on some conversion one
of these days.
Are emissions being checked, btw ?
Like in terms of smog legality ?
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Keezer
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 6:15 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
Scott and David ,others, and all skeptical old
farts like me, you need to go to Boston and
observe the Zetec from young farts Jim and Brady
who are way ahead of their time. Or it that our
time?
I did so this summer and and made an easy
decision- not to berate this Vanagon power option
any longer as I had been.
There is really no way that you can be a skeptic
after seeing and driving this engine. Their
craftsmanship is tops.
To be honest with you I was in awe at Bostigs
accomplishments- the things these guys know made
me keep my mouth shut (til I read up on it more!)
This is run by a programmable computer, and has
the ability to give kids in Hondas some blue
rubber smoke for their trouble.
I have ridden is the Subie and the Bostig- I
repeat if anyone is listening- this Zetech is a
legitimate conversion and especially the way the
Bostig boys have put it together.
I don't think anyone else can convince you but
Jim and Brady .
Am I too gullible? Yes- I bought a Vanagon ,
did'nt I?
So while you are comparing oranges and apples,
Bostig's Zetech is making a juice blend of them.
Go there and meet these guys who by the time they
are our age will be CEOS's of an automobile
manuafacturing company of the future.
For all you don't know , the first model they
roll off the factory floor could be called the
"New Vanagon"
Robert
1982 Westfalia
--- Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM> wrote:
> No, that's exactly what I mean, only 27 wires
> in the main harness,
> there are 104 pins, but we only have 27 wires
> running in/out of our
> ECU box in the main harness. Simplicity baby.
>
> It's also one of the reasons that we're now
> able to build our own
> harnesses brand new, from scratch, brand new
> connectors, pins, and
> wires, for this specific application.. the
> vanagon. We won't even be
> re-routing brand new ford harnesses like we've
> been doing which is
> already ahead of tearing down junkyard
> harnesses for use... we have
> brand new, purpose built, diagrammed,
> nailboarded, never installed,
> torn down, or re-routed wiring harnesses. We're
> the only ones that
> have this capability now... and it isn't easy
> either... we've been
> very busy beavers.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
>
>
>
> On 1/11/08, Scott Daniel - Shazam
> <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> > Hi jim,
> > What do you mean by " We only have 27 wires
> in the main harness for either
> > implementation"
> >
> > I don't think you mean there are only 27
> wires on the Focus ecu. That
> > wouldn't make sense.
> > A subaru ecu has about 60 or so wires. Tdi
> roughly the same, maybe it's 45
> > to 50..
> > This soobie ecu next to me has 84 pins I
> think, but not all of them are
> > used.
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vanagon Mailing List
> [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> > Jim Akiba
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:49 PM
> > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine
> alternative
> >
> > Wow someone brings up complexity.. good good.
> No you're absolutely
> > right adding more thing increases risk and
> increases the chances of
> > failure. However the zetec conversion itself
> is so simple, that adding
> > what we need to offer outstanding power to
> weight and great power
> > levels STILL keeps things simpler than what's
> out there. That's the
> > arguement for having both power adders. The
> turbo is more efficient,
> > but comes at the cost of simplicity.. there
> is another cooling system
> > for the intercooler, and there is more intake
> plumbing, and there is
> > an oil feed and return. The supercharger on
> the other hand while not
> > offering the same output levels of efficiency
> of the turbo, still
> > offers great torque in the low end because
> it's a positive
> > displacement blower, and doesn't have any
> additional oil lines intake
> > plumbing etc.. just an extra idler and longer
> belt, both still widely
> > available.
> >
> > We only have 27 wires in the main harness
> for either implementation,
> > how many in the R-TDI? Scott how many in the
> subies?
> >
> > Jim Akiba
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/11/08, David Marshall
> <mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
> > > So let me get this straight...
> >
> > > Adding things to make an engine more
> complex isn't upping the odds that
> > > something is going to fail because to have
> more stuff to fail? Cool!
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
