> > "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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[text/html]