TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: Gowesty 2.6/2.7 litre wbxr? Page: 1, 2  Next
remraf Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:17 pm

Just checked in to see when they might release their new FI system and noticed "We will be taking four Syncros: one with a stock 2.1 liter waterboxer, one with a standard production GoWesty 2.5 liter waterboxer, adn two with our latest experimental 2.6 and 2.7 liter versions.".

http://www.gowesty.com/library_article.php?id=1532

Just curious if this was old news. From reading the forums I had gotten the impression 2.5 was pushing the limits of wbxr case. Also thought the knock sensor on the new FI system might push them towards lower displacement/higher compression motors. Either way interesting developments.

Phishman068 Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:33 pm

That's wild!
2.7 is HUGE. 2.7 is big by 4 standard standards, and huge by modified 2.1 (really 1.9, kindof 1.3 standards!!!!). I mean that's wild, crazy, absurd, etc.

I've heard plenty of problems with the 2.5s and wouldn't suggest them, and they're pushing THAT!?
Those cylinder walls must be paper thin.

Unless.....


They're building a 6 cylinder....
It would be pretty darn reasonable to add 2 cylinders as OETIGGER originally did. All things considered, it's not a "ton" of engineering, just a fair bit of fabrication. But even at that, the bulk of it's established and figured out, you just need to "stretch". As long as you were planning a fair sized production run, and planning to cover the exhaust, intake, and injection systems (which they do.... and could....) it wouldn't be "that much".
Hmmmmmm.....
Do we have NEW 6 cylinder WBXers on the way?
That's the ONLY way I can see a 2.7 being built, reasonably.

chazz79 Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:50 pm

Really simple if they found a way to fit a readily available piston of known build quality, size and mass production in there (ie small block Chevy stuff).......

Half of 5.7l is......... wait for it. ......

2.85l parts are out there, dirt cheap and of proven quality you just need to make them work.

Zeitgeist 13 Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:51 pm

It would be interesting if the aftermarket community decided to build their own WBX cases, like Scat did way back in the day

D Clymer Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:52 pm

The main problem with their 2.5 is that they went for too big of a bore with stock cylinder jugs. Oettinger did it right with their original 2500E Wasserboxer back in 1987. They enlarged the case spigots for the cylinders and did 98mm bore cylinders with a larger overall diameter and preserved the standard cylinder wall thickness. If GW has gone this direction then I could see them doing a 2.6 or 2.7 with 99mm bores. But if they are pushing their current 2.5 further with nothing new in the cylinder department, I wouldn't touch that engine with a 30 ft pole.

I like a lot of what GW has to offer these days, but I think most people who wish to stay with the Wasserboxer want a 2.2 that's decently priced and stays below the cost of a 1.8T, Bostig or Subaru conversion. I think Tencentlife has shown that a 2.2 can put out excellent power without going for big displacement and huge dollars. The GW 2.5 has almost a $7000 price tag. One wonders what a 2.6 or 2.7 would price out at.

D

remraf Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:05 pm

As interesting as a six cylinder sounds it doesn't seem to mesh w/ their desire to keep things looking stock. It even mentions that on the FI system page. I was surprised they went to the trouble for knock control on the FI system but kept the distributor.

@D Clymer- was thinking the same thing regarding $.

D Clymer Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:10 pm

I should mention that I am looking forward to the GoWesty EFI system. I've been keeping an eye on their progress with this system and it looks like they are doing a quality job with the development of it. I've always felt like a stock 2.1 (with the right pistons) in a tiptop 4 speed van provides decent performance. And I remember what they drove like when new - again completely adequate and at the time kind of impressive for a VW van. But it seems like these days, due to worn Digifant components, these 2.1s often don't run to their full potential. Hopefully the GW system will add a new dimension of drivability and performance to these rigs.

D

furrylittleotter Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:23 pm

I applaud GoWesty for their continued R&D on this and other items. A 2.8 with a properly functioning control system is the thing dreams are made of.

Neil2

zeohsix Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:12 am

DARN! Guess I better list my SAH 1.8T swap kit in the classifieds. Reading the threads about the reliability of their other "hand grenades" leaves me waiting in anticipation of the quality experience that buyers of this package will post :D

Robw_z Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:33 am

I just wish GoWesty would sell a high compression 2.2... I cant imagine the fuel mileage of a 2.7 WBX is all that great.

-Rob

morymob Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:00 am

I can't see enuf room in head to get 2.8 cyls in there, maybe a mod to the new ones, OR a new crank (stroked) to get the cc's?? That would be a tqy one.

DAV!D Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:20 am

At what point can everyone agree, that the price tag just becomes silly?

$6 or $7k for one of these new engines would likely be the case if not more. Another $2k for the fancy new wiring harness (which is nice but still a lot of money) then another $1,6k for a new exhaust system..

You are spending about $10k when it's all said and done. Does any one think that one of those engines would out last any modern engine swap much less get comparable fuel economy?

I think it's great they try these things, but it just seems silly to me, to try to keep upgrading a stone wheel.

This is coming from someone that is trying hard not to do a engine swap at the moment. I do think a WBX has it's place, but once you start talking that kind of money, is it really worth it?

TequilaSunSet Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:27 am

zeohsix wrote: DARN! Guess I better list my SAH 1.8T swap kit in the classifieds. Reading the threads about the reliability of their other "hand grenades" leaves me waiting in anticipation of the quality experience that buyers of this package will post :D

BLASPHEMY!!!

Yondermtn Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:42 am

I agree with Dav!d. And I think it would be difficult to keep it under $10k for the engine, FI, exhaust, install.

insyncro Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:24 am

Grenade :!:
Punching out a 2.1 to 2.7 reminds me of 2.7 race motors punched to 3.2s.
Sometimes they last the entire race, but not often.

You can have a 2002-2004 EZ30d for well under $10k.
Well under.

Trust me, if it is legit and stands the test of time, I will own one.
I am not knocking GW at all and hope the best for this project.
The wiring looks promising, but at this point I would use it on a Vanistan built motor and exhaust.

remraf Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:23 am

Or use the new management system for a 1.9 w/ turbo. Seems like a better chance for power/efficiency.

rockfish Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:32 pm

D Clymer wrote: I should mention that I am looking forward to the GoWesty EFI system. I've been keeping an eye on their progress with this system and it looks like they are doing a quality job with the development of it. I've always felt like a stock 2.1 (with the right pistons) in a tiptop 4 speed van provides decent performance. And I remember what they drove like when new - again completely adequate and at the time kind of impressive for a VW van. But it seems like these days, due to worn Digifant components, these 2.1s often don't run to their full potential. Hopefully the GW system will add a new dimension of drivability and performance to these rigs.

D

I'm running on a Beta version of the new GW EFI system. There is at least one more update for the firmware before they will release the product. New computer is mounted under the closet in our Westy...freeing up space underneath the bench seat.

What I can tell you is that it works very, very nicely. The one drawback right now is the idle is a little goofy sometimes, runs a little high - but they know that and are working on the fix. Plus the idle gets goofy if the AC runs.

But - no hiccups, no lunging or hesitation, etc. Runs very smooth, accelerates nicely, decelerates the same - like a dream. Very happy so far.

As for the 2.5 failures - the main culprit has been the custom pistons. I had my 2.5 installed a little over 4 years ago and I know they are now 2 versions past what they put in mine. I had one piston disintegrate in June on our way back from camping in Santa Barbara --- 10 miles from GW on 101 in SLO. All fixed and runs great. I was out of warranty but GW did right by me and I cannot complain.

mariusstrom Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:40 pm

rockfish wrote: I'm running on a Beta version of the new GW EFI system. There is at least one more update for the firmware before they will release the product. New computer is mounted under the closet in our Westy...freeing up space underneath the bench seat.

What I can tell you is that it works very, very nicely. The one drawback right now is the idle is a little goofy sometimes, runs a little high - but they know that and are working on the fix. Plus the idle gets goofy if the AC runs.

But - no hiccups, no lunging or hesitation, etc. Runs very smooth, accelerates nicely, decelerates the same - like a dream. Very happy so far.
Curious if you can share what sort of fuel econ changes you're seeing with the beta system? Totally understand if they've asked you not to share since it's not "final".

Red Beard Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:17 pm

mariusstrom wrote: rockfish wrote: I'm running on a Beta version of the new GW EFI system. There is at least one more update for the firmware before they will release the product. New computer is mounted under the closet in our Westy...freeing up space underneath the bench seat.

What I can tell you is that it works very, very nicely. The one drawback right now is the idle is a little goofy sometimes, runs a little high - but they know that and are working on the fix. Plus the idle gets goofy if the AC runs.

But - no hiccups, no lunging or hesitation, etc. Runs very smooth, accelerates nicely, decelerates the same - like a dream. Very happy so far.
Curious if you can share what sort of fuel econ changes you're seeing with the beta system? Totally understand if they've asked you not to share since it's not "final".

I second this question. THanks!

rockfish Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:12 pm

At this point there is no change in fuel economy. But I haven't been given the green light to play with the settings yet.



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group