What doesn't make sense in this argument, to me at least, is how you can get
more HP from air alone and not air and fuel.
If there was not the accompanying fuel to accommodate the additional better
breathing from the big valve engine, - the van would be running lean, right?

So, if Boston Bob's van moves more air, it does seem to me that the AFM
would report this, and the ecu would increase the pulse length of the
injectors, to supply more fuel.

Marshall Ruskin
84 Westy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vanagon man" <vgonman@MSN.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 06:04 AM
Subject: Re: TIICO vs. hot rod WBX

> Boston Bob's motor was getting 18+ I believe he mentioned.............who
> stated 15 mph?  That motor is a stock FI system, why would it burn more
> fuel?   Boston Bob made it "breathe" better by increasing valve
> size.........thus it appeared to have a serious gain in HP and torque over
> the stock motor .
>
>   A fair comparison is a 2 liter type 4 engine in a bus vs. a 2 liter
engine
> in a Porshe 914...Both type 4 engines, both look the same except the
Porsche
> engine has much better heads leading to the HP gains...................
>
>
> Adam P
>
> 81 Vanagon Westy (The Brick)
> 70 Single Cab "Whitey"
> 74 Beetle "Ol Yeller"
> 73 Transporter (STILL at paint shop)
> 1988 Vanagon Wolfsburg
> Used Vanagon Parts for sale (mostly aircooled)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barry E. Muller" <bmuller@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 7:14 PM
> Subject: Re: TIICO vs. hot rod WBX
>
>
> > > Now, based on an average gas mileage of 20 for TIICO, assumed 15 (does
> > > anyone know?) for Bob's motor, gas cost of $1.40 per gallon and 12000
> miles
> > > traveled a year, Boston Bob's Big-valve Boxer will cost $280 more in
gas
> per
> > > year to operate.  This means it will take about 3 years for Tiico's
> improved
> > > mileage to pay off.
> >
> > 15 MPG ??? Is this for real?  I assume the base BB rebuild gets the same
> as the
> > original engine (ca 19 mpg).
> >
> > Oh well - its nice to have choices.
> >