This thread could not be more off base. Sorry to any
one I may offend ahead of time, but the higher RPM engine has
little to do with the balancing of the crank. Making a motor
rev. higher and faster, is a mater of the bore VS stroke, and
the abliliy of the motor to breath.

            Eric                   86-VW4x4
            vw4x4@fyi.net          72-240z
            Pittsburgh, PA USA     1936-Chrysler

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, harald_nancy wrote:

> To Robert and the other volks following the
> "power rebuild" thread:
> I do find the idea of counter balancing the crankshaft
> on the 2.1 l wasserboxer intriguing.
> So maybe instead of changing gear ratios or wheel sizes,
> one can make the engine more "rev happy".
> On my 90 westy auto. 65 mph equals about 3800 rpm.
> My vanagon will cruise at this speed without complaining
> all day long, all the way from Oly. to LA and back.
> But any higher and I definitely notice a sharp increase in
> vibrations and noise emanating from the engine.
> The thing is, there is lots of reserve power.
> At 65 the accelerator is only about 1/2 way down.
> (on level ground with no headwind and 48 psi in the tires)
> If I floor it, the van can easily cruise at 85 mph,
> but the complaining from the wasserboxer becomes
> unbearable.
> So if a counterbalanced crank reduces the vibrations
> and noise from the engine at high rpm operation,
> (3500 to 4500), it definitely would be worth it.
> Especially if you don't want to reduce
> the gear ratios or wheel size, since that would
> compromise acceleration and climbing ability.  Imho
>
> Harald
> 90 westy
> Olympia WA
>
> Robert Lilley wrote:
> >  It balances the mass from the pistons rotating. Smooths out the engine.
> >  True the 2.1L does not move as much as the bug case, But I have heard of
> > 2.1L cranks breaking in the center and for $150 extra the insurance and
> > smoothing out of the engine was, IMHO worth it.  Plus with a stock four
> > speed tranny turning at 4000 RPMS at 70 it will help.
> >
> > Plus, Why do High Performance engines have counterweight cranks?
> >
> >
> > Robert
>