

| Subject: | Re: 2.1 heads |
| From: | Jim Arnott |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:08:05 -0700 |
Something was bothering me about the comparison of VW and Subaru engine management systems and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until John's post.... Why are we making this comparison? The waterboxer engine management system works perfectly well managing a 1.9 or 2.1 liter Volkswagen water-cooled horizontally opposed four cylinder engine. If I put a 531 cubic inch Donovan motor in my 1967 Chevelle, I certainly don't start complaining about how the Delco ignition and Rochester carburetor that Chevrolet supplied to feed a 283 were a poor design choice on General Motors' part since they are obviously so ill suited to feed my state- of-the-21st-century-art small block. VW designed a system. That system works amazingly well. Change the parameters outside the engineer's design and it is NOT the design engineer's fault that things no longer function optimally. Engine management system is not adequate for a 200 cc displacement increase and a 2 point compression increase? How is that VW's fault? Carry it back to the 'engineer' that did the design work for the 'system' you ARE working with. Have that 'engineer' determine the solution for the shortcomings in HIS design. Implement that solution. Problem solved. Simple, huh? Jim On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:19 PM, John Anderson wrote: > Actually although I don't recall exactly I believe it was '85 when > the GTI got knock sensor ignition, and certainly all VW inline 4s > (in the US market) had it within a couple of years. I think > probably VW didn't want to take the time with the relatively low > market (even worldwide) waterboxer which they probably knew they > were abandoning soon anyway by then to bother. > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM > > wrote: > > And also how sometimes, you can't quite get from 'here' to 'there' > without > higher technology, like much mo' betta electronic engine management. > Waterboxer fuel injection is quite crude compare to > say .........what Subaru > has with their 2.2 engine starting in 1990.
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »