Scott, also, from just looking at it, the SVX conversion appears to have a
severely compromised departure angle due to the two extra cylinders. This is
just eyeballing it, though, and it might be an optical delusion...........

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Scott Daniel - Shazam <
scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:

> Given the overall height of vw inline fours,
> It's easy to see why for the diesel vanagon they did the 50 degree
> install.
> ( a shallow wide oil pan is a disadvantage though )
> Given  that the whole van and engine bay were designed for an opposed four
> engine an inline four is not really a 'natural.'
>   ..............and, start comparing how far below the bottom of the
> flywheel most engines extend. On a waterboxer it's about 3 inches or even
> a
> bit less.
>  On all other 'normal engines' - line inline fours, and subaru's
> too........the bottom of the oil pan as much as 6 or 7 inches below the
> bottom of the flywheel. In subaru's we always have to shorten the pan a
> good
> 2 to 2.5 inches to get it reasonably close to what the waterboxer was, as
> far as how far down the bottom of the engine extends.
>  The adapters allow for 22.5 degrees I hear also. Which could help for an
> inline four.
> Shortening the pan a little isn't too bad. On my Subaru conversions I do
> that step totally at the very end of the project - when it's all running
> perfectly, oil pressure is good, cooling system -  all that, then last
> step
> I shorten the pan as little as possible to fit the installation just
> right.
>  And an oil pressure gauge is a nice thing to have then too.
>  If you know what Departure Angle is in off roading..........
> The pan sticks right down in a bad place - so it's not just that it's low,
> it's also that it's low in a bad place.  The best place for lowest ground
> clearance is directly between the wheels ( left to right speaking that is
>  )
> ......at least that doesn't reduce the departure angle at the rear -
> having
> the pan or something else very low a foot or so aft of the rear wheels is
> not desirable.
>  But progress is being made !  there is so much that can be seen in
> hindsight so easily.
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> neil N
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:13 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Neil's motor..
>
> At this point, getting the engine higher and making the carrier higher
> too, is a "next time" thing. That and actually getting the bottom part
> of carrier level!  --- :^)  I'll be interested to see just how much
> room is needed for clearance between oil pan and carrier when putting
> the engine under a load. I actually went and watched my nephews' '02
> Jetta just to see how much it moved when revved up. Of course it uses
> much more modern stuff. Mounts included. But it didn't move too much
> when revved up. Maybe after this is running, I'll look into correcting
> the bottom part and moving it up a 1/2" or so. Maybe there's a way to
> shorten the oil pan too.
>
> Actually, while following some kind of passenger car today, I took
> notice of how low the oil pan was. Still more clearance on my Westy
> though. I do go on dirt roads sometimes, but if I can, I make sure
> it's rated at 2WD. Lack of ground clearance or not, I hate the thought
> of pounding my van on  pot holes etc. any more than needed.
>
> As for keeping it a "full" 2.0, the main reason was to not dick around
> with swapping the head etc. And as I progressed, I thought it might be
> useful to see just how many stock Jetta parts could be used. This
> might help the next person should they decide to do this. More "one
> stop shopping" using donor parts, possibly introducing less variables
> when trying to get it to run, and potentially saving money using stuff
> like the Jetta air box.
>
> I must say, though a very premature comment, that next time, I'd do a
> 50 degree. (Heck for that matter, I might even do a Suby!) Or, find a
> better way to fab the carrier so I could gain a couple inches.
>
> But I really should wait til' I drive it before officially commenting. ---
> ;^)
>
> Neil.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Scott Daniel - Shazam
> <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> > Neil
> >  That's great you are keeping the engine a 'full' 2.0.
> >  A common trick is to put a 1.8 gas head on a 2.0 gas block - that's for
> >  clearance at 50 degrees on the left side of the engine bay.
> >   I think it's great you're doing a 15 degree- and I wanna do one of
> those
> >  one of these days too - all my inline 4's have been at 50 degrees, and
> I
> >  feel there are real advantages to leaving it like it is, and standing
> it
> up
> >  in there.
> >
> >  And........whatever your cross bar deal is, and that you are happy with
> it,
> >  that's all that matters...........BUT, ......I mean
> AND........regarding
> >  ground clearance.
> >   I was thinking about it the other night, and I realized in ALL car and
> van
> >  installations by manufacturers......the pan is always the lowest part.
> All
> >  support bars and gross members go around the pan.  You don't have a cut
> out
> >  in your pan since it's from a sideways front engine car........but,
> since
> >  getting the engine as low as is practical is always desired.......you
> look
> >  under any car ......volvo, subaru, american front engine V-8, ......and
> the
> >  pan is always the lowest part - just to get the engine low as is
> practical
> >  and still have decent ground clearance.
> >   I think if it was my installation I'd be temped to make a cut out at
> one
> >  end of the pan, flywheel end probably, and run my cross bar through
> there.
> >    On Subaru engine conversions, whatever support bar is used, it always
> >  goes around the end of the pan, either forward or at the rear, and the
> pan
> >  is the lowest part.
> >    Anyway ! you having fun is the most important part.
> >  Oh......last thought, on 2WD I fudge the whole engine up as much as 2
> solid
> >  inches - as long as the shift linkage angle doesn't get too extreme or
> >  weird, there's room to raise the engine quite a bit compared to stock.
> >  Scott
> >  www.turbovans.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >  From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >  neil N
> >  Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:43 AM
> >  To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> >  Subject: Re: Neil's motor..
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the tips Don.
> >
> >  It's a different set up than a "diesel" type of install. It's a stock
> >  Jetta ABA 2.0 mounted at 15 degrees. Much more upright. Plus it keeps
> >  the stock 2.0 head and Motronic FI. This changes things a lot over a
> >  given VW I4 using a 1.8 head. But, it presents similar needs. Just
> >  different locations. That I can see........ so far!
> >
> >  Appreciate you telling me what's in your rig. The ducting from air
> >  intake plenum to air box may end up being a combination of hard and
> >  flexible materials. This would enable me to use the stock air intake
> >  boot..... if my plan works that is!
> >
> >  I've never seen brake ducting before, but I'll bet there's some kind
> >  of residential HVAC ducting I could use for both the air box snorkel
> >  and the ducting to the throttle body.
> >
> >  Here's a couple of low res pics (less than 50kb each). In one, you can
> >  see how I've placed the stock air intake boot.
> >
> >
>
> http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/Aircleanertestfitsmall.jpg/Aircleanertestfit
> >  small-full;init:.jpg
> >
> >
>
> http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/Engineroughedin1small.jpg/Engineroughedin1sm
> >  all-full;init:.jpg
> >
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >
> >  Neil.
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Don Hanson <dhanson@gorge.net> wrote:
> >  >   Hey Neil,
> >  >
> >  >   I haven't been bringing up your pics of the engine mounts, etc.
> because
> >  I
> >  >  have this *glacial* dial-up internet connection here at my house out
> in
> >  the
> >  >  sticks, but it sounds like you are well on the way.
> >  >    A suggestion, as I see you mentioned connecting your air cleaner
> >  somehow.
> >  >  In my inline four, the conversion was done when I got it, but the
> >  convertor
> >  >  used thin-wall aluminum  irrigation sprinkler pipe to fabricate the
> >  intake
> >  >  runner from the airbox over to the plenum and it looks like it might
> have
> >  >  been fairly simple for him.  The end result is quite sturdy to work
> with
> >  >  when you must dink around with it.  My air cleaner is in the stock
> >  >  position(?) and the 'duct work' crosses the engine compartment at
> the
> >  front
> >  >  right along the edge of the access hatch, with another snorkel out
> of
> the
> >  >  aircleaner, made of brake ducting,  going up into the right side
> rear
> >  body
> >  >  vent for cool fresh air.
> >  >   If your install is similar to the I-4/Diesel one that I have, don't
> >  >  neglect to connect the engine mounts across under the motor.  I came
> very
> >  >  close to having a huge headache when my right side (the longer one)
> motor
> >  >  mount sheered off the bolts at the engine block, due to it's
> propensity
> >  to
> >  >  twist without the cross brace to defer some of that force..
> >  >
> >  >   Don Hanson
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia - "Jaco"
> >
> >  http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
> >  http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  No virus found in this incoming message.
> >  Checked by AVG.
> >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1344 - Release Date:
> 3/26/2008
> >  8:52 AM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Neil Nicholson. 1981 Air Cooled Westfalia - "Jaco"
>
> http://web.mac.com/tubaneil
> http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1344 - Release Date: 3/26/2008
> 8:52 AM
>

--
Gracias,
Miguel