

| Subject: | On the Lower Perceived Lifetime of Diesel Vanagons ACT VW Diesels |
| From: | Frank Grunthaner |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Sep 2001 03:42:01 EDT |
Again faulty wisdom has raised its nefarious head! This topic was enjoined by the anecdotal observation that Diesel Vanagons died the death of the internals faster (in terms of total distance traversed! - I understand the apparent oxymoron generated upon using diesel and forms of fast, faster and fastest in the same sentence) than do similar engines mounted in G/J/D/Q/A frames. Even more odious, the suggestion was made that the problem was related to gearing differences. So it is with a heavy sigh I offer the comment (with further documentation addressed in the archives): Its not the number of spins (revolutions) but rather the work done! Not the length of walk, but the weight of the pack! Not the ... Oh well another tack: The Vanagon diesel is plagued by two serious shortcomings. 1). A lifetime at full load, and 2). Mere disinterested users who disregard maintenance. As for point two, I shall not expound. For point the first, however, I would note that the diesel vanagon generally yields a maximum fuel economy of 25 to 28 miles to the US gallon. This is in contrast to normal VW N/A diesel economy of 35 to 45 mpg. Miles per gallon in the long statistical aggregate can be taken as related directly to the amount of work expended per unit distance. These "data" suggest that the average Vanagon diesel is putting out between a minimum of 25% to a maximum of 80% more work over its lifespan that other VW applications. So a vanagon engine lifetime of 110,000 miles translates to about 200,000 miles in rabbit units. Seems OK to me! Engine longevity is directly proportional to mean brake specific pressure per unit time. Temperature issue, rpm and load cycling and excess fuel wash of cylinders are further perturbations as is lubricity and oil acidity, but these are secondary. Lower gearing (more spins per mile), lower load, then longer life. Guys (and others), if the engine is properly designed and operated within its design limits, 3000 rpm at 60 or 4000 at 60, 4000 rpm for these small low torque engines probably has more durability (mean time to failure) as compared to the 3000 case. Negligibly more fuel burned. Just louder! Frank Grunthaner
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »