also,
the 6-cylinder can be a finicky engine if it's not pampered.
(just what i've heard secondhand)
that being said, i would rather have a lower-stressed 6-cyl that has
the ability to run on 87 if it absolutely has to, versus a high-strung
turbo-4 that needs 91 or higher at all times to reduce/eliminate
detonation.
(power being the same ~240bhp)
sudhir

On 5/17/07, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:
> Oh and I almost forgot the weight Hans! It isn't just 100lbs more than stock
> in the rear. It's another 100lbs or more than the 2.2, which is already 70
> more than stock, so it's the same thing as having someone sitting on the
> deck lid(actually below, but you know what I mean) all the time, if you load
> the rear cargo area forget the 50/50 weight distro you could easily end up
> 40/60. While some people would be hard pressed to "feel" and find the
> additional weight, I think it's noticeable. Power to weight wise the turbo
> has it.
>
> Jim Akiba
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Achter [mailto:hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:13 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: 102mph - Turbo vs. 6-cylinder
>
> A WRX could be done but the SVX six-cylinder has several advantages.
> - The SVX has more power and torque, and has it at the low end where most
> people with a vanagon can use it.  You don't have to rev it up to feel the
> torque.  That's nice to have when off-roading or just running around town.
> - The SVX costs the customer far less to install.
> - The SVX is far less complex to install, and produces more power without
> the complexity of a turbocharging system.
> - Because of the fuel tank location, the turbo is more difficult to place in
> a syncro without burning down the van.
> - The SVX fits the engine compartment like a glove, and the 100 lb extra is
> not noticeable on a 5000 lb syncro westy.
> - The SVX is already very quiet on the highway using the 0.70 fourth, and
> has a pleasing exhaust note around town - it really reminds me of the sound
> of my old 73 Porsche 911.
> -Hans
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Akiba" <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:17 PM
> Subject: Re: 102mph
>
>
> > Ben is right, the turbo is the way to go... save the extra 100 lbs of the
> > 6,
> > it'll be way quieter, and more efficient with the combined cycle. The only
> > reason to go for the 6 would be uniqueness unless it is harder to turbo
> > the
> > subie than I'm guessing.
> >
> > Jim Akiba
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hans Achter [mailto:hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:42 PM
> > To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> > Subject: Re: 102mph
> >
> > Easy there, Ben!  Let's make sure you're still in one piece after a year.
> > No turbo, we can do six-cylinder!
> > -Hans
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Benny boy" <huotb@VIDEOTRON.CA>
> > To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: 102mph
> >
> >
> >> The question is not the speed, but how fast this one is to reach, i said
> >> 15
> >> to 20 seconde to be polite :-) it was more like 10sec, and i was more at
> >> 60mph. Of course, any in shape VW wasser will do it... down hill, wind in
> >> the back and after 30 minutes :-)
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> Anyway, now i need a Turbo, next year...
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:32:52 -0500, Jeff Lincoln <magikvw@GMAIL.COM>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah - I had my 85' 1.9 up to 95mph (actually more realistically 90mph) -
> >>>I
> >>>will never ever ever do that again.
> >>>
> >>>On 5/16/07, Todd Last <rubatoguy@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That is only 12mph more than I was able to do in my stock 2.1 Westy
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone for a "Vanagons at Bonneville"  event?
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd
> >>>> '88 Westy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>