Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:14:32 -0400
Reply-To: mbenne@CROSSKEYS.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Markus Benne <mbenne@CROSSKEYS.COM>
Organization: Crosskeys Systems Corporation
Subject: Vanagon Engine Conversions at Litchfield Show
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There were two Vanagon engine conversions at the Litchfield show.
Audi 80 2.0L
Nice conversion of a Diesel to a a 2.0L. His heads were modified to
flow much better and he
felt it had at least 115 ponies or about what a Golf 2.0L would have.
This was a slant install and all fit under the rear deck nicely.
Apparently it was quite difficult
but the guy is a machinist and had done installs before using the
Eurospec conversion
(which apparently left quite a lot to be desired) for other people.
The muffler pipes hung pretty low and one was right behind the drivers
rear wheel
so it would take quite a bit of abuse. The owner has a plan to change
that
but will wait for the pipes to rust out due to the cost of customer
exhaust pipes
and tig welding etc.
He is very happy with the performance.
Subaru 2.2
This conversion was done using the Kennedy conversion kit and is
incredibly clean and fits under the
read deck. When he started it up, it sounded very similar to a
waterboxer on speed, probably because its
also a waterboxer.
Everything in the engine bay was off the shelf or included in the
conversion kit. Apparently the installation
itself took about a day for a non-mechanic, but that doesn't include the
fabrication of the wiring harness
which apparently took about a weeks worth of evenings using the supplied
plans.
The only gotcha is the sump. This is approx 8" by 8" and hangs below
the engine by about 4".
It looks to me like it hangs about 2" lower than the lowest point of the
Vanagon engine.
The owner says that he has no problem with it as clearance is still
better than most mini vans.
I've heard that racing sums are available that are wider and about 2"
shorter. If one could get
rid of the sump completely (dry sump setup) I think the clearance would
actually be improved
over the Vanagon engine. There's gotta be an engineering solution to
this.
OPINIONS ALERT
Of the two conversions, I think I preferred the Subaru. Most kits for
the Golf don't install the engine at a slant
so they would intrude into the cargo area (not so great for a Westy).
There was also a lot of room left in the engine
bay. I.e. the engine wasn't wedged in there, it would be pleasant to
work on.
The clearance issue isn't as bad as I thought it was on the Subaru...I
had the impression that the whole engine
hung low, rather than just a small area, and I'm sure I could solve that
problem as well. As it stands now, I wouldn't be
surprised if that small area that hangs low would hang between the skid
plate beams on the Syncro.
The numbers on the Subaru are better than the Golf, but that is largely
irrelevant as both drivers reported
great performance and derivability.
Mileage seemed to be about the same for the engines.
Availability of Subaru engines is much better in New England than VWs,
although where I live, VWs would be easier to come by
and the Golf kit I was planning to use came with one.
Cost of the conversions and engines are virtually identical.
Wish I'd taken pictures of the conversion, but I was so excited I
completely forgot.
On the swapping side of the show, I scored two new Vanagon Syncro front
rotors for 25$US each. US made though.
If you have any opinions or questions, please let me know.
...Markus
