TheSamba.com :: View topic

Tue May 22, 2007 3:07 pm

Has anyone heard/seen/drove a Westie with "gasoline inline 4 cylinder engine from a Golf or Jetta"? There's one on Vancouver Island for sale that has had this conversion done...love to hear from you any information/knowledge you may have on the success of this type of conversion.

thanks,

jason

Tue May 22, 2007 3:20 pm

yes, I heard of it once :shock:

Tue May 22, 2007 4:21 pm

I have heard not to do it if you have an automatic tranny. The flex plate can't handle the added torque. With a manual tranny you should be good to go.

Tue May 22, 2007 4:30 pm

seriosly, use the "search" option

Wed May 23, 2007 11:36 am

Diesel doner or tiico parts married to an I4 gas. Fairly reliable, nothing to fear there.

Wed May 23, 2007 11:53 am

in all reality the vanagon automatic and H2o MKI/II/ automatic flex plate are the same.. *shrugs.

Wildthings wrote: I have heard not to do it if you have an automatic tranny. The flex plate can't handle the added torque. With a manual tranny you should be good to go.

Wed May 23, 2007 1:57 pm

"man what you talkin' bout willis"

I have a 2.0 ABA that was converted and was a stick shift in the beginning....and a year later it is now an automatic...

I love my 2.0 with the auto set-up and it has 135 HP...AND I use the 135 HP!

Here is where it was brought into the modern world

http://www.theautobahnsociety.com/Engine_main.htm

It makes you wonder why didn't VW do it in the first place with the Rabbit motor when the van first came out...

Wed May 23, 2007 5:55 pm

kayakwesty wrote: It makes you wonder why didn't VW do it in the first place with the Rabbit motor when the van first came out...

Was VW's proverbial head stuck somewhere? They made all of the parts for mounting the 1.6 diesel PRIOR to mounting the WBX motor. :roll: :?: :roll: Did they just have an excess of beetle valve covers sitting in a warehouse??? No reason I can see for the WBX motor ever being produced.

I like my 2.0L ABA. Reliable as can be. Mine is a manual.

As mentioned, if the inline-4 won't work with the vanagon automatic trans, then it wouldn't work with the jetta/golf/passat auto-trans.

Andrew

Wed May 23, 2007 5:56 pm

kayakwesty wrote: It makes you wonder why didn't VW do it in the first place with the Rabbit motor when the van first came out...

Says on that page that VW couldn't produce enough inline 4s to meet demand, so they used a boxer for the vanagon, but that seems dubious to me.

Wed May 23, 2007 6:10 pm

this is so confusing to me can someone answer a few question :?: this is what i have on hand right now #1 1988 vw cabriolet auto #2 1995 jetta 2.0 auto #3 1990 audi 100 5cyl auto. these cars are complete are any of the above good choices for a 1991 vanagon auto conversion please help set me in the right direction thanks :?

Wed May 23, 2007 6:11 pm

That just doesn't make sense. If factories are producing boxers, then they aren't producing inline-4's and vice versa. Making a production change to boxer engines because there is a shortage of inline motors is nonsense.

Andrew

Wed May 23, 2007 6:34 pm

here's what i heard from a vw FOM when i worked for vw in the 80's
i asked why would vw bother building the waterboxer when they
already had installed inline 4's in vanagons. he said vw developed
the waterboxer, built the plant to build the motor, and hired a work
force to build the motor. at zero hour vw wanted to scrap the plan
for the waterboxer, but the german government stepped in and told
vw that they had they had made a binding commitment with the
work force they hired, and forced vw to build the motor for certain
amount of years. i don't know if this is the absolute truth, but this
is what an official from vw told me.

Wed May 23, 2007 7:00 pm

look at what they did when they moved the V plant to SA. I4, I5 >>>upgraded interior...ect
I need a passport and a shipping container :twisted:

Wed May 23, 2007 8:27 pm

mcsyncro wrote: here's what i heard from a vw FOM when i worked for vw in the 80's
i asked why would vw bother building the waterboxer when they
already had installed inline 4's in vanagons. he said vw developed
the waterboxer, built the plant to build the motor, and hired a work
force to build the motor. at zero hour vw wanted to scrap the plan
for the waterboxer, but the german government stepped in and told
vw that they had they had made a binding commitment with the
work force they hired, and forced vw to build the motor for certain
amount of years. i don't know if this is the absolute truth, but this
is what an official from vw told me.

Now that is a viable explanation...

Andrew

Wed May 23, 2007 8:31 pm

If they were forced to build WBX's why did they send them to us instead of some third world country? Still doesn't make sense.

Wed May 23, 2007 8:34 pm

Because they don't like Americans? :lol: To get even? :lol:

Andrew

Wed May 23, 2007 8:39 pm

If VW had bailed on the wbx, we'd have nothing to talk about. What about clearance? Weight (case vs block)? I never realized that the Diesel and SA Vanagon's were the only rear engine/RWD Inline VW's(?). Something there for 35 yrs of rear engine/RWD horizontally opposed, maybe.

Wed May 23, 2007 9:59 pm

you guy's know what motor i have in my syncro, speaking of heavier than the waterboxer, but aside from the forward thrust of acceleration
it has, i don't notice any difference in the handling. it seems the same
as it always did. maybe because it's a heavy pig to begin with.
some day when i put a 5 cylinder in my dream ride, (a slammed 2 wheel drive doka), i'll feel the weight difference.

Thu May 24, 2007 6:24 am

devesvws wrote: this is so confusing to me can someone answer a few question :?: this is what i have on hand right now #1 1988 vw cabriolet auto #2 1995 jetta 2.0 auto #3 1990 audi 100 5cyl auto. these cars are complete are any of the above good choices for a 1991 vanagon auto conversion please help set me in the right direction thanks :?

This is off the top of my head, so inline four/five conversion guys, feel free to crucify me:

88 Cabriolet: 1.8 liter, 95 HP
95 Jetta: 2.0 Crossflow, 115 HP (crossflow head will have a hard time fitting in the Vanagon engine bay)
90 Audi 100 5 Cyl. : Not sure of HP, but it does require more modifications, different exhaust, and different parts than doing an I-4, so more $$.

Why not use the 2.0 bottom end from the Jetta with the '88 head? Solves the clearance problem and you have a bottom end with forged internals, oil squirters, and more HP and torque than the 1.8...

Thu May 24, 2007 7:01 am

mine is a 1.8 digifant head mated to a 2.0 ABA block, my deck closes over the motor perfect and the motor looks like VW installed it

www.theautobhansociety.com

installed my motor...Steve is the man!