| Author |
Message |
dobryan
Samba Member
Joined: March 24, 2006
Posts: 16503
Location: Brookeville, MD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jon_slider
Samba Member
Joined: April 11, 2007
Posts: 5091
Location: Santa Cruz, Crowdifornia
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| a57oval wrote: |
Jon_slider: Thanks for the thoughts on performance. What were/are your MPG figures? |
on multiple 1000+ mile trips between Santa Fe NM, and Santa Barbara, CA with a 2.2 subaru motor in a syncro westy, I consistently got 17.5mpg.
Bear in mind the speed limit on much of that route is 75mph.
again, imo, the gas mileage question is a red herring
if you you are going to move a given weight, at a given speed, its going to take a given amount of fuel, regardless which motor or transaxle is used. No free lunch, no magic bullet. Gas motors use gas at similar rates.
The Biggest factor that increases fuel mileage, is lower speed.
_________________
My Soapboxes: Inflation; Handling; Gearing; Decoupling; Swepco |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalispell365
Samba Member
Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 889
Location: PNW
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wyldryce wrote: |
I wouldn't honestly think the difference would be staggering between the two, especially if you are going to the trouble of installing the subaru 5mt. My 85 Westy with the EJ22 is pretty peppy IMO for a Vanagon, and I also own a 2001 Forester with the 2.5. While I guess I'd like the 2.5 for the marginal power improvement, I think the EJ22 is proven as a far more reliable powerplant from a headgasket perspective, and given the difficulty in bleeding cooling systems in a Vanagon, a more tolerant powerplant is a desireable trait 
I may consider doing a homebrew Turbo/intercooled build on my EJ22 at somepoint...but really from what I've read the Subaru 5mt tranny is the best improvement overall for proper gearing to take advantage of the Subaru's power delivery traits. |
Very well said...as far as head gaskets/ durability goes there is no contest. the EJ22 was by far more durable. I make my living repairing Subaru vehicles. I suspect most on here haven't had their EJ25 motors long enough to experience the 80-100k head gasket/ full reseal required on every one of these motors, as well as the inferior timing belt tensioner knocking, inferior coil pack/ corroding spark plug wire ends, leaking spark plug tube seals, interference motor, etc. I could go on... I have made many house payments from the 2.5.
I am in NO way knocking these motors, they offer a little power bump and when maintained are a smooth motor. But from a design/ durability perspective there is simply no comparison...
_________________
1983 Diesel Vanagon Westfalia chassis with Subaru 2.2l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalispell365
Samba Member
Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 889
Location: PNW
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
In all fairness, I do not have a Syncro, and probably would resign to using the EJ25 if I did.....
But in a 2WD westy, I can pull every pass in the PNW easily at 70 mph. Honestly, I feel the van would be incapable of handling any more power/ speed in its stock suspension and tire size.
It all boils down to the old saying about speed costs money.
_________________
1983 Diesel Vanagon Westfalia chassis with Subaru 2.2l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
?Waldo?
Samba Member
Joined: February 22, 2006
Posts: 9752
Location: Where?
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jon_slider wrote: |
| Regardless what gas motor you have, you will get essentially the same gas mileage. Because the weight of the van is a constant, and it takes a certain amount of fuel to move the mass of the vehicle a certain speed. |
That's close to true with un-throttled diesel engines but not accurate with throttled gasoline engines. The additional vacuum on the intake stroke is an increased pumping loss. A larger displacement engine driven at similar acceleration rates and similar cruising speeds to a smaller displacement gasoline engine will result in more time spent at partial throttle and consequently increased intake vacuum and decreased fuel economy because of it. Driven at higher rates of acceleration or higher cruising speeds may make the intake vacuum losses similar but would also see a decrease in fuel economy due to the higher power required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tarandusVDub
Samba Member
Joined: August 27, 2010
Posts: 1649
Location: Between Here and There
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kalispell365 wrote: |
Very well said...as far as head gaskets/ durability goes there is no contest. the EJ22 was by far more durable. I make my living repairing Subaru vehicles. I suspect most on here haven't had their EJ25 motors long enough to experience the 80-100k head gasket/ full reseal required on every one of these motors, as well as the inferior timing belt tensioner knocking, inferior coil pack/ corroding spark plug wire ends, leaking spark plug tube seals, interference motor, etc. I could go on... I have made many house payments from the 2.5.
I am in NO way knocking these motors, they offer a little power bump and when maintained are a smooth motor. But from a design/ durability perspective there is simply no comparison... |
I have a 2009 2.5L Subie conversion. I was under the impression that only the phase 1 2.5L DOHC engines produced from 1996-99 were prone to the head gasket and related issues, but that with the later 2.5L Subaru developed new head gaskets to address the issues with those engines.
_________________
1990 Syncro 16" DoppleKabine 2.1 DJ 112i
________________________
Sold: 1972 Bay Campmobile; 1984 Westy, base model, 2WD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon_slider
Samba Member
Joined: April 11, 2007
Posts: 5091
Location: Santa Cruz, Crowdifornia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew A. Libby wrote: |
| A larger displacement engine driven at similar acceleration rates and similar cruising speeds to a smaller displacement gasoline engine will result in more time spent at partial throttle and consequently increased intake vacuum and decreased fuel economy |
my experience with a 2.2 Subie (larger displacement) getting 17.5mpg, and Stephans chipped 1.8T (smaller displacement) that also gets 17.5mpg, suggests that the 137 hp subie, and the 200+ horsepower 1.8T, get the same fuel mileage.
Of course, a more scientific test would require that Stephans Van, and Mine, would need to be on the same trip to determine if there is some small difference in efficiency. Im sure there is, but not, imo, enough to base a motor selection choice on Fuel Mileage expectations.
I would pick the motor with the most horsepower first, and try not to mash the pedal when trying to optimize fuel economy.
Motor swaps are not cheap, even if its penny wise to go with a lower horsepower option, to me its pound foolish. Given a choice between 137hp 2.2, 160hp 2.5, and 180hp 1.8T, I would not do a 2.2 again.
_________________
My Soapboxes: Inflation; Handling; Gearing; Decoupling; Swepco |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nacradriver
Samba Member
Joined: January 15, 2009
Posts: 760
Location: Ventura, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jon_slider wrote: |
Motor swaps are not cheap, even if its penny wise to go with a lower horsepower option, to me its pound foolish. Given a choice between 137hp 2.2, 160hp 2.5, and 180hp 1.8T, I would not do a 2.2 again. |
Thanks....
_________________
Güdrun -1989 Westfalia - 2013 - 2018
Petra - 1985 Vanagon - 1985 to 1991
Zisa - 1974 VW Van "Bus" - 1974 to 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jstar89crx
Samba Member
Joined: September 19, 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Bellingham WA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jon_slider
Samba Member
Joined: April 11, 2007
Posts: 5091
Location: Santa Cruz, Crowdifornia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wcdennis wrote: |
| What engine you choose partly depends on the Subarugears R&P you choose. |
I would choose ring and pinion after tires, and would choose tires after the motor
In the following order
1. The motor with the most smog legal power I can afford.
2. The tire size that best suits my needs for ground clearance, brake upgrades, and final gearing.
3. The ring and pinion needed to place 4th gear at 71mph@4000rpm
_________________
My Soapboxes: Inflation; Handling; Gearing; Decoupling; Swepco |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wyldryce
Samba Member
Joined: August 14, 2011
Posts: 83
Location: Annapolis, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jon_slider wrote: |
| wcdennis wrote: |
| What engine you choose partly depends on the Subarugears R&P you choose. |
I would choose ring and pinion after tires, and would choose tires after the motor
In the following order
1. The motor with the most smog legal power I can afford.
2. The tire size that best suits my needs for ground clearance, brake upgrades, and final gearing.
3. The ring and pinion needed to place 4th gear at 71mph@4000rpm |
Hmm...that's coincidentally about what my 2wd phase 1 ej22 westy turns at 70mph in 4th with stock 14" wheels with load c tires. Personally, would be a lot happier with a Suby 5mt in front of the motor and the ability to cruise somewhere in the neighborhood of 3200-3400 in a 5th gear on the flats.
it's true though (I as well, used to make my living managing a shop that did extensive subaru work) that the ej22 is a much more robust engine when it comes to cooling. The EJ22 should also tolerate a reasonable level of boost (assuming one doesn't get greedy).
All in good time though, as I am still unFu$%ing all the prior work the last few owners have done to her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ftp2leta
Samba Member
Joined: October 11, 2004
Posts: 3271
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tarandusVDub wrote: |
I have a 2009 2.5L Subie conversion. I was under the impression that only the phase 1 2.5L DOHC engines produced from 1996-99 were prone to the head gasket and related issues, but that with the later 2.5L Subaru developed new head gaskets to address the issues with those engines. |
Leak are aleatory, I have seen a 30k miles engine with a small oil leak, and older one with 150k mile with no sign of any leak.
I have personally never seen an internal coolant leak since I have been doing conversion, generally they leak from the lower oil passage, it start slow and can take one year to become more important.
That said, in general, on most Japanese 4 cyl you can expect a head gasket job at around 80-100k miles.
To you question, no real change where maid to the head gasket in the 2.5L SOHC life.
What's wrong is the torque sequence - procedure. It's plain stupid.
Since 4 years I have developed my own torque sequence.
I'm approaching 100 conversion, on those I had to do the head gasket twice. So make your own conclusion.
Quoted form the link bellow:
| Quote: |
Q: How much does a Head Gasket Repair Cost if I have to foot the bill?
A: This is a very tricky thing to answer. Labor can differ greatly across the nation just like home prices. I have observed invoices from shops in Montana for $1000.00 and ones form New York for $3000.00. You are much better off finding a good Subaru shop that charges a fair price and does a good job and obtaining a price from them. |
This is a one day MAX job.
8 hours + head gasket + a good check at the timing component depending on millage.
with a helper I did it in an easy 5-6 hours.
-1.5 hours to lower the engine, remove exhaust and carrier bar, drain engine coolant.
-45 minutes to remove head and timing components
-30 minutes to clean head-engine mating surface.
-1 hours to reassemble the head and t-belt stuff.
-1 hour to put back the exhaust and carrier bar
-1 hour to bleed.
8 X 75$ hrs = 600
2 X genuine Head gasket = 130$
If needed, all timing component = 250-300$ (no more labor time because they have to be remove anyway for the HG job.
So any owner of a Subi conversion should print that in case they ever need that job.
I bought a 90k miles engine for me, it's leaking oil and the T-belf as a few crack. I'm doing the HG today and will make a small video. Of course it's on an engine stand so it's faster.
Ben
_________________
Working with rust, grease, dirt and dust is a sad truth.
------------------------------------------------------
FI part for sale: http://www.benplace.com/parts_sale1.htm
My site: http://www.benplace.com/vw2.htm
Subi conversion: http://www.benplace.com/vanaru_eng.htm
Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/ftp2leta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalispell365
Samba Member
Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 889
Location: PNW
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
"What's wrong is the torque sequence - procedure. It's plain stupid.
Since 4 years I have developed my own torque sequence.
I'm approaching 100 conversion, on those I had to do the head gasket twice. So make your own conclusion."
Ben[/quote]
Ben,
Im curious, any chance youd share your sequence? I know another sequence as well and have seen it used with success, but it makes me nervous...
1) torque bolts 1-6 to 11 ft/lb.
2) torque bolts 1-6 to 80 ft/lb.
That's it...
I know a dealer tech who has been using it with complete success for years.
_________________
1983 Diesel Vanagon Westfalia chassis with Subaru 2.2l |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ftp2leta
Samba Member
Joined: October 11, 2004
Posts: 3271
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kalispell365 wrote: |
Ben,
Im curious, any chance youd share your sequence? I know another sequence as well and have seen it used with success, but it makes me nervous...
1) torque bolts 1-6 to 11 ft/lb.
2) torque bolts 1-6 to 80 ft/lb.
That's it...
I know a dealer tech who has been using it with complete success for years. |
You need to go back out after the 53flb to perfectly mate the gasket once before re-torquing because the head is to short in length.
Wile back out, instead of the 11flb on the 4 corner one I put 18.
On top, at the end your friend is about right, but I have 90 on the center one and 75 at the 4 corners.
Anyway, I'm making the video right now.
Ben
_________________
Working with rust, grease, dirt and dust is a sad truth.
------------------------------------------------------
FI part for sale: http://www.benplace.com/parts_sale1.htm
My site: http://www.benplace.com/vw2.htm
Subi conversion: http://www.benplace.com/vanaru_eng.htm
Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/ftp2leta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Subarugears
Samba Member
Joined: January 03, 2012
Posts: 294
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ben, this will be very worthwhile knowledge for the community. Thankyou for sharing your experience and personal knowledge on this issue for everyone to use. 
_________________
http://www.subarugears.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insyncro
Banned
Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 15086
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Benny, you rule  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dobryan
Samba Member
Joined: March 24, 2006
Posts: 16503
Location: Brookeville, MD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tschroeder0
Samba Member
Joined: April 14, 2008
Posts: 2096
Location: Boulder CO
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a late phase 2, 2.2 (1999) i believe about 15 horse less than the 2.5 but more than the earlier 2.2's.
I understand the idea of a bit more hp/tourque now...with the van its all about getting it up to speed, once there maintaining is easy.
I got about 19-20 mph on my last 1200 mile trip to yellowstone from boulder.
I think it makes perfect sense to go with a 2.5 if you can get one...a 2.2 is fine but... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlbranth
Samba Member
Joined: May 24, 2014
Posts: 209
Location: Carnation, Wa
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter - I'm new to Vanagon - just bought a '91 with a 2.5 Forester engine. I drive like an old lady and so far I've been getting 19-20mpg. This engine has plenty of power. I'm up near Ames lake. If you'd like to take a look, send a PM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WLD*WSTY
Samba Member
Joined: November 04, 2009
Posts: 438
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| termuehlen wrote: |
| I have a 2.2L large block Subaru conversion in a full Westfalia with an automatic transmission. |
So, what's a "2.2L large block" Subaru?? That's a new one to me...
_________________
'82 SyncroWesty, the first ever conversion.'06 Subaru 2.5L |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
