Different idle control, different dizzy, very different exhaust, no O2,
and no KAT.....

Mark

Jim Arnott wrote:
> So there's been a bit of discussion on the Diesel-Vanagon lists about
> the design criteria for the Vanagon.
>
> Frank Grunthaler mentioned the engineering data that he scanned and
> translated that lives on Alistair Bell's website.
> <http://members.shaw.ca/ragnarhairybreeks/vantech1.html
>  >  Amongst the scans was a document that piqued my gasoline engined
> interest.  Take a look at Automobiletechnische Zeitschrifte article on
> the 1.9l wasserboxer engine:
> <http://members.shaw.ca/ragnarhairybreeks/technical%20articles/WB19/WB19p1.html
>
>  >
>
> Compare the graph on page 2 with the similar graph on page 3. What
> caught my eye was the flatness of the torque curve on the 66 kw motor
> (2800-4400 is essentially flat) as opposed to the sudden drop off of
> torque on the 63 kw motor (peaks at 2900 and immediately begins to
> drop off). Driving a diesel most of the time makes me very aware of
> the value of torque in driving these beasts.
>
> Does anyone know what the differences are between the 63 kW motor and
> the 66 kW motor? Is it black box differences or mechanical
> differences? How do I make my US spec 1.9 give me a torque curve like
> that?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim
>