Hi Don.

FYI the WBX goed 265 lbs with engine cradle etc attached, the 2.2 Subaru
motor 290.
I think your I-4 with its cast iron block will weigh more than either one.

But you should definitely supercharge your motor, that's got to be a good
thing!    8-)

On 5/18/07, Don Hanson <dhanson@gorge.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
> No, not the boxer motor.  This may seem like blasphemy, especially here on
> the Vanagon List, but from everything I have read
> (never owned one myself) the waterboxer seems a pretty weak design all
> around.  At least that is what I glean from all the rap.
>   What I was thinking is an inline 4 vw motor, perhaps even the one I
> already have in my 84, which is an older 8-valve 1.8liter.  I will have to
> do some further research, but I've seen mention of aftermarket kits and
> parts available for 1.8L Turbo VW factory motors, and I understand the
> basic
> pieces of the VW inline four haven't been changed much.  If the factory
> put
> out turbos and GTIs using that platform, it may be feasible to bolt on a
> supercharger without overstressing the motor beyond reason.  Luckily, I
> don't live in California, so the C.A.R.B. dweebs are not a concern..(BTW,
> why do they go after little guys with small motor conversions there in
> Wow-fornia and let Mexican truckers run around spewing black smoke, and
> stuff like that? moot question.)
>   If one were to keep the final power output within reason, it seems to me
> like it'd work great.  Hold the HP down to about what you get from a 2.5
> liter Subie.  Probably the motor weight would be near 3-500lbs less.  The
> initial conversion is certainly much cheaper and simpler than a Subie
> conversion, what with an I-4 being cheap and readily available.
>   The guys who've stuck em onto vehicles I have seen seem to have no major
> issues with engine management.  The issues seem to be pretty
> basic..Getting
> the drive belts and brackets done properly, sizing the pulleys for proper
> "pump" speed, etc.
>   I am going to look into this seriously as I just sold my '72 Beetle and
> have about the proper sum of cash sitting around right now from that
> transaction...Hmmm  The target would be about 150-175hp from a motor that
> is
> 3-4 hundred lbs lighter than a waterboxer and that's found in every VW
> since
> the Rabbit...
>   Don Hanson
>
> > Date:    Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:17 -0400
> > From:    Jim Akiba <> Subject: Re: Huffer motors..Turbo and SC...
> >
> > Hey Don,
> >
> > Do you mean supercharge the boxer? Yeah you could do it, but there are
> > serious downsides.  The big three are that since the boxer is already
> prone
> > to head gasket sealing problems as most open decks are, forced induction
> in
> > anything but the lowest of boost levels is asking for trouble. Second
> you'd
> > have to change the engine management significantly enough to cause the
> whole
> > project to cost quite a bit of money, and the supercharger itself isn't
> > cheap. You'd also have to bring whatever other pieces of the puzzle that
> are
> > old and worn up to spec, you can't push the limits of an engine if it's
> near
> > failure already either because it is maxed out by design or state of
> > operation because of age, miles, etc.  Lastly since the boxer is
> expensive
> > to rebuild/replace, the risk financially is huge. If you spent 5k on
> > supercharging the setup and pop your engine, are you really willing to
> spend
> > another 4k for a rebuild to attempt it again? What is the second rebuild
> > goes? You're then 13k into it with nothing to show. The risk money-wise
> is
> > huge, the *potential* ROI is small. Doable? Sure. Prudent... eh..
> dunno...
> > You're right about the altitude though, in our 3500k mile trip just this
> > past month, at altitudes of 6k and above with the supercharged setup we
> were
> > still pulling good grades at 65-70 if we wanted to push it.
> >
> > Jim Akiba
>

--
Jake
1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
www.crescentbeachguitar.com