Mark

could you expand more on the very different exhaust comment?  also the
differences that you list are they what would qualify as the european
version of the 1.9 wasserboxer?

jonathan

On Sun, 24 May 2009, mark drillock wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
>