GoWesty 2700cc Wasserboxer is on the horizon.

[D Clymer]

I was on the GoWesty website tonight and I happened to notice they have streamlined their Wasserboxer engine lineup. The 2200 and 2300 engines are the same as before. But the trouble-prone 2500 has been replaced by a 2450 engine which has the same stroke as the defunct 2500, but the pistons have been reduced 1mm in diameter to 96mm. The engine is about $1000 cheaper. Incidentally, the 2400 engine is now discontinued.

On a hunch, I checked in their library and found some intriguing new information in their piston article. http://www.gowesty.com/library_article.php?id=105 It mentions a new 2700 (2693cc) engine with 100.75mm pistons and custom made billet steel oversized cylinders. It uses the same 84.5mm stroke as the 2450 and previous 2500 engines did. I think the oversized cylinders will make all the difference here because stock cylinder wall thickness will be retained, so oil consumption shouldn't be an issue. This is the way Oettinger did it with their 2474cc Wasserboxer way back in 1987. The Oettinger 2500 engine used 98mm pistons with custom cylinders. It was done right, and it looks like GoWesty has followed the same path this time around.

The new 2700 engine has a high 10:1 compression ratio, so it is obviously designed to run with their new knock sensor equipped fuel injection system.

I'm generally not a fan of throwing huge money into the Wasserboxer. For 10K, I'd much rather have a Stephan's Autohaus 1.8T or a Subaru 2.5 from Vanaru, but I admire and respect continued evolution and refinement, and it looks like GoWesty has done a nice job of that with these new advances to the WBX platform. And it's nice to have choices.

Dave

[ThankYouJerry]

[D Clymer]

[Zeitgeist 13]

With an NA engine, the added displacement really makes a lot of sense...assuming they can keep the reliability in the mix.
_________________
Casey--

'89 Bluestar ALH w/12mm Waldo pump, PP764 and GT2052
'01 Weekender --> full camper
y u rune klassik?

[D Clymer]

[BavarianWrench]

I look forward to seeing who goes first. I know where there are some rod knocking and oil puking 2.4 and 2.5 GW cores. Owners finally gave up. I hope they come up with a decent hydraulic lifter too. I hate waiting for lifters to bleed after sitting only a week or two. Oettinger seemed to have a lot of this figured out. It always seemed crazy to me to hear all the failed 2.4 and 2.5 stories. It is not like the wheel is being reinvented? There are huge air cooled engines running hard in dune buggies, with many seasons on one build. My question is, was it tuning and maintenance that was blowing up the 2.4 and 2.5 GW engines? Not having a knock sensor? Poor fuel quality? Poor design and build quality? The history of the 2.4 and 2.5 have done Rocky Jennings and tencent well.

[ThankYouJerry]

[insyncro]

I am currently testing and experimenting with a new GW 2.2.
The quality, smoothness and power are all much better than previous rebuilds I have seen from GW.

This one is a runner and the minute it starts you can tell that it has been built properly.

2.7??? No clue about how well it will perform, but with all the bolt on management upgrades GW has been working on they should provide the electronics to run a juiced WBX fairly well.

Looking forward to seeing and hearing more about it.

[imtb]

I am trying to decide what to do myself. I really like the van but 60mph tops on the higway at close to 4000rpms is too much.

What kind of cuirsing speed do you do yo get the GW 2.2 and what kind of rpms. Do you change 4th gear?

[insyncro]

[Jon_slider]

[Franklinstower]

[rockfish]

I have an 89 Westy w/ a GW2.5 (and 5spd trans). We just picked up an 84 Westy (for our son) with a Vanistan 2.2 (4spd trans).

The 2.5/trans (among many other replacements/upgrades) was installed in 2009 at 170K miles. In June 2013, we had an engine failure - just passed our warranty date/miles. One of the pistons failed. Luckily we were on Hwy 101 heading home and we were only 10mi from GW when it happened!

Since our initial install, GW had redesigned (2 other revs) and changed piston manufacturers. Even though we were outside the warranty period, GW fixed it all...only charging me 50% on parts.

I had GW install their new EFI system back then. I am now on rev 2.4. The latest rev fixes the idle problem when you're running the AC. Still some fine tuning to be done --- but it's pretty good now. I think we're seeing a 1mpg improvement - but if you think that's something you want (significant mpg improvement), I would caution you not to expect that.

I think the 2.5 piston experience for GW has had a huge influence on their 2.7 project/design. I know that they have a 2.7 out on the road right now. I'll be interested in learning about HP, torque, etc. when the numbers come out. Would also like to know what (if any) adjustments will be required so that the trans can accept the additional power.

I've posted in other threads - but just to review...with the 2.5 and 5spd, we can travel at 70mph at 3Krpm. I cannot tell you what my top speed can be, but I can easily travel faster than 85mph on the open (and mostly flat) road.

If you're familiar with either the Bay Area (Hwy 17 to Santa Cruz) or traveling to Southern California via I-5, then you'll know what kind of grades you can face on those roads. On Hwy 17, I can drop down into 4th gear and go as fast as I want/safe up the hill. On I-5, on the steepest southern segments I can run 65-70mph in 4th gear. The revs are about 4200 when running that fast in 4th - but that is the sweet spot for the WBX.

In comparison, I drove our son's Westy over to Van Cafe for some preventative maintenance before we ship to him at his college. Taking Hwy 17, there is a definite drop-off in performance when it comes to hill climbing. I had to drop into 3rd gear several times in order to keep from bogging down. And if you're familiar with 4spd gearing, then you know that 3-4Krpm in 3rd gear is not going to get you up to highway speed.

That being said - the Vanistan 2.2 is a wonderful engine. Super quiet and super smooth. This particular engine has about 2K miles on it so far - but it looks to be a beauty and will do well by our son. On a flat road surface - I would say it has the same get up and go as the GW2.5.

If you don't think you'll be facing too many hills in your Westy/Vanagon (or you don't care about slowing down below 50mph), then your WBX options are wide open.

Lastly, I met a Westy owner at the last Burning Van who has a 1.8T. Loves it. And he can run up to Lake Tahoe without any issues (occasionally gearing down into 4th - but that happens with just about any vehicle).

Hope this helps...
_________________
89 Westy
GW 2.5 5-speed trans

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
- John Wooden

[Jon_slider]

> i wonder how fast I was really going when my speedo hit 100 going down Stevens Pass with my 215/70/16 tires

Try this
Go 70mph on your speedo. Compare that number to a GPS speed. For example, if the GPS says 65, then your speedo is optimistic by 8%. (not 6mph at other speeds)

that means If your speedo says 54mph, your GPS will say 50mph. 8%, not 4mph at other speeds.

fwiw, my speedo reads 10% lower than my actual GPS speed. When my speedo says 50mph, my actual GPS speed is 55mph. I had my speedometer calibrated at Palo Alto Speedometer. They got it wrong. It used to read 5% LOWER than GPS. They adjusted it to read another 5% LOWER. I hate that place.

my odometer reads 5% lower than actual GPS distance. When my odometer says Ive gone 100 miles, my actual GPS distance is 105 miles.

My tires are 20% larger than stock, and my ring and pinion is 12% shorter than stock, a difference of 8%, but Van speedos are notoriously inaccurate, usually optimistic, meaning actual speed is lower than indicated speed, even stock.

And as you can see, Odometer error can be totally different than speedometer error.

The speedo error is a percentage, not a fixed number. The odometer error is NOT necessarily the same as the speedometer error.

IF an Odometer is not accurate, MPG calculations are also not accurate.
_________________
My Soapboxes: Inflation; Handling; Gearing; Decoupling; Swepco

[Howesight]

I read with interest some years ago the GoWesty 2.5 litre engine story, including their narrative on piston failures in the initial designing and testing. What struck me all along was the resistance GoWesty appeared to have to investing in proper knock control. Telling buyers to always buy premium gas, by the way, is not a knock control system, in my opinion.

The version one 2.5 had a larger bore and the pistons had smaller cross-sections in some critical areas of the piston. It does not take many knock events at all to crack a piston. In a robust piston design, the main failure point for knocking is the piston ring lands. In the GW design, the cross-section, due to the deep dish in the WBX "Heron" design, features a very small cross-section in some critical areas which appears to be the main failure point.

Add to this the larger bore (meaning the flame front has to travel further) and a mystery deck height, and you have a recipe for knock.

Tight deck height (at or under 0.040") really helps the squish and quench available in the Heron design to resist knock. I have no idea what deck heights GW were running on these first edition 2.5 engines.

Regardless, with knock control now part of the GW package, I would be willing to bet that piston failures will decline considerably.
_________________
'86 Syncro Westy SVX

[?Waldo?]

I'd much rather see forced induction than larger displacement.

[imtb]

Mine is 86 syncro with 4speed and 2.1 water boxer. I have 15" wheels. I can feel the sweet spot is around 59 60mph, I installed some 1.25 rockers and it perfomred better on the higway, but suffered around town so, I put the stock rockers back in. I would like to try 1.25 rockers on exhaust and stock on intake. I also have RMW exhaust. I want to check my speedo to GPS.

I like the water boxer being the orginal engine and 2.5 or 2.7 would porbably move it down the road pretty good.

What about a turbo on the water boxer low boost work with the stock FI?

[pdm777]

Why reinvent the wheel?
If you're spending $10K +,
Duplicate the factory and use the 3.2 L six from '84-'89 Porsche!
These engines are bulletproof - 200K in 911 is common.
Anybody in recent times put a 3.2 / G50 tranny into a Westy?

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/porsche-b32-the-porsche-camper-van-that-almost-was-1453489406

[westyventures]

[?Waldo?]

That's awesome. 638hp from a WBX.