Chris Stann wrote:

> OK, one more before I go.
>
> The only way to accurately determine which engine is more efficient is meter
> the fuel flow.

Filling up the tank is a more accurate metering of fuel consumption.

> You'll have to reduce variables as much as possible.  Same
> type of Vanagon,

The Doublecab and Westfalia are not only both 1986s but their VIN numbers differ
by only 20 digits.

> same tires,

Truck had Yoko Y370 LT 195/75R14s and the Westfalia had Generic P205/70R14s (now
also has Yoko Y370 LTs)

> tire pressures

Westfalia has 43 psi front and 50 psi rear. The truck has 45 psi all around.

> , oil viscosities

Westfalia has Mobil 1 15W50. The truck has generic 10W30.

> -- no cheating

The Westfalia has the drive shaft pulled (for now)

> with synthetic in your tranny,

The Westfalia has synthetic front and rear. The truck has unknown.

> same exterior equipment.  Same day, same
> road, same conditions, same speed.

We traveled in convoy, so the conditions and speed were identical.

> Two way average at a constant speed.
>
> Any one up for the challenge?

We didn't do this 800+ mile trek to compare engines. We were simply trying to
get both of us home. But I did keep good records and thought that the List could
benefit from our findings.

Our findings are that the Subaru 2.2 L engine in a Vanagon is more fuel
efficient. Our measurements show the advantage is 15%.

I like the Subaru conversion so much that I plan on dropping one in out
Westfalia when the time comes.
The only impediment to the conversion is the oil pan clearance problem and KEP
is currently working on that too.
-Larry