Those numbers are from the Urabus site.

I figured the WBX number was pretty good because I've lifted them into/out
of  the back hatch of my '84 with relative ease.  Having worked construction
for 30 years I'm well acquainted with weight.

So I trusted their weight for the 2.2 'cause I haven't lifted one myself.  I
don't see why it would be tremendously different anyway.  They're both
alloy, though the Subie has twice as many cams and valves.

They didn't specify the state of dress/undress.   8-)

On 5/18/07, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com> wrote:
>
> Those subie figures don't correspond to what we've measured. When we
> converted the first 2.2L subie to zetec the van(both conversion had AC
> BTW)
> was 40 lbs lighter as installed and running, I know the zetec fully
> dressed
> is just under 300, which puts the 2.2 at 330-340 not 290. How were the
> weights you got calculated?
>
> Jim Akiba
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake de Villiers [mailto:crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post
>
> 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
>

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