TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: Who has driven BOTH a Bostig van AND a 2.5 Subaru van? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
ftp2leta Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:42 pm

westyventures wrote: ftp2leta wrote: It's a phase 3 with 145 hp. It now as an easy 180hp, very easy to modified when you know your stuff.

To Troy, if you don't now me I do Subi conversion, and I drive one, i now have 36k miles on mine, since one year it was modified twice, it now as about 215hp, no turbo.

one is a highly modified STI engine, over 440 HP, the other one is a mild modified 2006 WRX engine with about 275hp.

Ben

Ben, I hate to bring this up, but I must whenever such unsubstantiated horsepower claims are thrown out into the internet: WHERE are the dyno tests? I mean, I could claim that my TDI makes 180 hp and 300 ft/lbs., but I won't because I don't have proof. Just sayin'.... :wink:

My good friend Karl, next time we see each other i will let you drive my van, no one does but i'm ok with you :-)

You will see, it's very impressive and it doesn't have a turbo. 3 doors from my shop there is a tuner shop with a dyno, next test i will print the sheet and scan it just for you.

We are (neighbour and friends) are fine tuning a Honda civic twin turbo this week, it peek at 520hp. It won't last but is so much fun.

Take care Karl and see you soon I hope, Ben
ps.: i should go south anytime between December and January, come with us!

ftp2leta Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:29 pm

Good post.

Ok ok ok, each time i go get my engine I end up in that crazy place, where i guy crave about Subi. Each time he make me try new cars with different engines, the STI engine/car is simply a monster. It'S stock at around 300hp, it's a pretty light car for that kind of scary power.

When i walk in that alibaba cave i'm surrounded with all Subi engine, all more new than each other, I now, i found the jack pot. Last time i drove there, 19 engines where on the floor ready to be pick up. 3 STI, 3 WRX, 9 2.5L, 2 SVX (yes!), a few H6, 2 XT (250hp) and 2 or 3 2.2.

All can be fitted pretty easily in a Vanagon except the H6.

Dylan, 3 week ago i have test driven a 1.8T in a Vanagon, it's the 155hp or so version, it's not even close to a WRX engine., it's miles away. The WRX will simply eat your transmission and van, the STI will ripped your van appart. PERIOD.

So please guys, as for power and easy fit in your Vanagon, the Subaru line up is the real deal.

Most of you have no idea of how powerful those Subi boxer engine can be, 95% of you guys even never saw a Subi conversion.

I did 35! A stock 2007 2.5L as over 175hp, your van as 80hp as best as we speak. That is twice the power and torque.

Bought me a car for this winter, a 98 Impreza, beaten to death by a young kid, paid 500 an invested 2000$ + labour.

My little 2.2L in my car as shaved head, long duration cam, bigger injectors and a tuned ECM, That engine is now pushing that car like crazy, it's such a small engine....

Right now, in my shop I have 4 x 2.5L + 1 for testing, i could have simply take one and stuff it in my car, no, i took the hard path and decided to see what can the venerable 2.2L as to offer with some small mod.... i now don't even need a 2.5L.

I have spent the last 5 days stripping that car, putting an all new power plant, differential, transmission, clutch, drive shaft, suspension, wheel bearing, drive axle, bushing, ball joint, brake, suspension , interior... tonight was my first real test, 100 miles. What an amazing car it is! I didn't know nothing about Subi car 1 week ago, funny! Now i could show Subaru how their car are built.

A little reminder:




insyncro wrote: If it is power you seek, you are looking at the wrong engines.
I prefer the SVX conversion over all available for a Syncro.
The WRX turbo charged 4 cylinder would be my pick for a 2wd van.
The 1.8T is a tie with the WRX and works in a Syncro too.
Followed closely by the Bostig version 2 with the turbo.

All of these listed will leave you smiling when you push the gas pedal.
Kiss you gas mileage goodbye if you have a lead foot and besure to rebuild the transmission at install of these powerplants.
Depending upon where you live a gearing change may be necessary as well.

All listed above are no where near the cost of the 2.5 or version 2 Bostig without the turbo.

I will also add that if this would be topping out your budget, than all that power and no braking upgrades is foolish.
Front big brakes at a minimum for safety sake.

If you have specific questions please pmail me.
I will answer from my experiences.

dylan

insyncro Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:53 am

Ben,
I agree.
Anyone putting 275 + horsepower into a Vanagon better use a G50 or really beef up the stock trans.
I am running a EG33 with larger injectors and appropriate mapping.
I will just say it is more HP than stock.
It is bolted to a stock Syncro transmission with over 100k miles on it.
It is all in the way you drive, IMHO.
Romp on the gas and it will blow quickly.
This van has been my test platform for many upgrades and it is still going strong.
I will say that I nut and bolt it often, meaning tighten everything up.
Especially the connection between the engine, adapter and transmission.

Yes, the STI versions are neck snapping.
1% of convertors will even consider that engine.
The 1.8T can be worked as well with larger turbo, timer and engine controls to give excellent power.
It is an option for those who want to keep a VW a VW.
Trust me they are out there.

Bottomline, whatever engine you choose, it can be worked and reworked for more power than stock.
The only factor that really matters when it come to power is how big your budget is, period.

dylan

Sir Sam Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:19 am

insyncro wrote: Bottomline, whatever engine you choose, it can be worked and reworked for more power than stock.
The only factor that really matters when it come to power is how big your budget is, period.

dylan

"Speed costs money, how fast can you afford to go."

ftp2leta Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:49 pm

Here is a reply from Daryl from AA Transaxle (same question posted elsewhere), it's an interesting comparison and he is probably one of the few who as driven both and even some other.

But I know Daryl, and he is a Ford lover :-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have driven both on numerous occasions...Driven lots of the 2.2 and 2.5 (turbo
too) and even some 3.3's in my quest for correct gearing of the trannys in front
of each engine.
I own a Syncro Westy with a 30K Zetec in it. Just got back from a Wet Westies
event and put another few hundred peacefull quiet miles on mine at about 20mpg.
Zetec is a higher revving engine..not unlike the Tiico or any I-4. DOHC with a
usable power band of 2000 to 5000 RPM(and above) A tiny bit less bottom end than
a 2.2 since its is a smaller motor. Less for sure than a 2.5. Although I
followed a 2.5 down to SDM this year and we pretty much kept even including up
the Siskyou Mtn 7% grades. Drop her down to 3rd at 55 or 60 and she loved it.
Kept to 65 or even 70 that way.
I find the bottom end of 4th gear to be the one spot I wils it had more power,
but after you get uses to it, you drive differently by staying in gear
longer..not a real world problem.
I can also gear them with a bit taller 3rd and a shorter 4th to make that go
away as well.
No vibratons.
Less ground clearance in the totally stock configuration by about an inch or so.
Spring spacer fix that.
I kept up with the other big boy syncro's at Mogfest on the Jeep trails of
Tilamook Forrest with a bit of slow speed clutch work (read slipping) and had a
ball.
The conversion will run you abour $5500 total depending on what you want new or
what your willing to buy used.
Presently there are brand spankin new crate motors available for $1300.Needless
to say, everyone is using one of those lately. (I got a spare)
Like wa said..Lots of differences and hard to compare the various varieties. My
suggestion is contact the Bostig boys and see if there is a Bostig near you and
drive it. Not california legal either.
I'm on digest, so call or pmail with any questions..

Daryl of AA Transaxle

insyncro Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:06 pm

Great post.
Question answered.

TroySmith80 Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:20 am

Yeah, that was a great response from Daryl.

Well thanks to the very friendly and helpful people out there in Vanagon-land, i got to drive 2 vans yesterday and ride in another.

There was a VERY clear winner in the engine conversion debate. It had easily the most power and was probably the smoothest and quietest as well. It was Eric's STI-powered TriStar! Haha, ok well it may be disqualified due to the cost aspect of that particular swap! Seriously though, that thing is incredible. There are 2 things i can tell you about that: 1) It is SILLY fast 2)Eric is not especially concerned about speeding tickets! :lol:

Back to the topic at hand though, I was able to drive a 2.2 powered Westy Weekender (also converted by Eric) and a Bostig V2.0 Passenger Van. Power in either was absolutely grin-inducing compared to my waterboxer and i'm now even more excited about this whole project.

I'll get into my drive observations. Take them for what they're worth. I drove each for maybe 10-20 minutes and it was not back-to-back. So it's by no means conclusive, but was very helpful to me, and i'll try to share my experience.

The Bostig was a very clean installation, lots of open space in the engine bay, pretty simple to see and access most things. VERY beefy aluminum engine adapter plate, that baby was over 1/2" thick! This van had lower than normal springs, which combined with the Bostig engine resulted in very low clearance. Maybe 5-7" (don't quote me on that, i didn't measure, just guesstimating). I thought the engine pulled happily from lower RPM than the waterboxer, without a lot of shaking and shuddering as some engines will do at very low RPM (1,000-2,000). From 2,000 on it pulled quite linearly. It did shake/vibrate more than i expected, and was somewhat loud. I was a bit surprised by both of those factors. I'm curious if there was something specific to that particular van. Daryl mentioned his being very smooth. I have heard from one other person that a Bostig that they drove was rough and loud as well. I wonder if there are some factors that can make that vary from one van to the next.

Anyway, the Bostig had stock gearing and it was pretty well suited to it. Overall i was impressed by the power and driveability, but pretty disappointed in the noise/shake.

The Subaru 2.2 was an earlier OBD-1 model, it had around 130K at time of swap. This one really made me excited to do my swap! It was extremely smooth and fairly quiet. Much better in both regards than the Bostig. There was a little power-steering noise sometimes, but not terrible. The engine idled down around 700 RPM or so and was smooth as glass. I was very surprised by how well the van pulled from down low with the 2.2. Very impressive. This one was geared stock except for 4th which was taller but not as tall as the .77, owner couldn't remember for sure but thought maybe .83 4th.

This convinced me that Subaru will be the way to go for me, and has put the 2.2 solidly in the list of contenders. Previously, i had discounted the 2.2 due to the fact that there is a 2.5. But now i see that it has great power and is much more readily available and cheaper. Also, the OBD-1 is appealing because the fewer things I have to do to "trick" the computer, the more confident I am that i'll have an absolutely trouble free driver(no obnoxious little weird problems).

So for me, I'm going to keep an eye out for a good deal on a wrecked subaru. I actually see SVXs pretty cheap every so often (cheaper than a late-model 2.5) and am considering that. Mileage would not be as good but the power must be mind-blowing (or would be, if my brain wasn't already plastered against the headrest of Eric's TriStar). I think i might be happiest overall with a 2.5 but i know even the 2.2 will give me an ear-to-ear grin.

The Bostig guys are to be commended, their installation looks great and the owner of the van was happy with the results and very happy that he had done it himself. It's too bad they can't get that engine in there at an angle like the VW 1.8T. I also am curious why that van was rather loud and shakey, I can't help but think that other's with the Bostig may not be so bad in that regard.

Anyway, that's my take, for what it's worth (~1.5)

Rhinoculips Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:39 am

I'm glad you put the EJ22 on the table. It is an amazing engine! People see the EJ25 with more power and think its a better engine and forget about the EJ22.

mtnwater Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:06 am

Nice work Troy - seeing, driving, and comparing is the only way to get a good idea of the differences. Your findings with respect to noise/vibration/harshness, however, are the complete opposite of my experience.

My EJ 22 was loud and had a bit of a rough growl to it. I tried two different headers and three different mufflers - no joy.

The zetec, in contrast, is smoooooth and amazingly quiet. Sounds like the install you saw may have had some issues...

Just know that there can be some very significant variability with conversions, particularly with the subaru's.

Best of luck!

TroySmith80 Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:24 am

Yeah, it's interesting. In either case, subaru or bostig, some apparently are smooth and quiet, and some are rough and loud.

I sure wish i knew why that was. I would guess that intake plumbing could be a significant factor, as well as exhaust.

The 2.2 that i drove had Eric's Porsche 911 muffler setup on it, and an open cone filter in the rear driver side of engine bay.

ftp2leta Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:41 pm

Rhinoculips wrote: I'm glad you put the EJ22 on the table. It is an amazing engine! People see the EJ25 with more power and think its a better engine and forget about the EJ22.

The 2.2L is a tank! One of the best 4cyl out there. Well, it's getting older and that is the only reason i'm not doing some, from stop sign to stop sign and that to red line it's about the same power as a 2.5L. Where the 2.5L show it's guts is on heavy hills and higher freeway speed.

The late 2.5L vibrate a bit more at idle, nothing terible but a little bit more than the 2000-04 engine. A lot as to do with the engine mount quality.

The Bostig of Brady that i heard in Busfusion was very quiet and i didn't SEE any vibration. It was at that time the new phase2. Nicely done conversion.

The Subi are very quiet, but you need to use a Ernst muffler and NOT the now el cheapo Brosal now made in Philippine. An Emico CAT is also a must, don't use the cheap stuff. Installing the exhaust system is also a bit tricky for a novice, you need to make sure everything is loose but installed before thigting each bolt, screw then in one by one, little by little.

DON'T but NEVER use the Small Car donuts as gasket, just don't!! i can't tell you why but it's an horror story, use some OEM VW solid one.

Intake pluming, not really, but the stock 2.2L elbow does the best job as to air noise, stock filter box or not.

Ben

TroySmith80 Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:48 pm

thanks for the tips, Ben.

I didn't SEE any vibration on the bostig. In fact, when we started it up and were just looking, i commented on how smooth it looked. And i rested my hand on the valve cover and there was almost no movement. Driving was a different story though.

wcdennis Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:41 pm

If you do a little research on basic engine geometry you will come across this: Quote: Boxers are one of only three cylinder layouts that have a natural dynamic balance; the others being the straight-6 and the V12. These engines can run very smoothly and free of unbalanced forces with a four-stroke cycle and do not require a balance shaft or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in other engine configurations. ...and... Quote: ... inline four cylinder engines which, due to the asymmetry of their design, have an inherent second order vibration (vibrating at twice the engine RPM) which cannot be eliminated no matter how well the internal components are balanced. This vibration is generated because the movement of the connecting rods in an inline engine is not symmetrical throughout the crankshaft rotation; thus during a given period of crankshaft rotation, the descending and ascending pistons are not always completely opposed in their acceleration, giving rise to a net vertical inertial force twice in each revolution whose intensity increases quadratically with RPM, no matter how closely the components are matched for weight. ...and... Quote: Most inline-four engines below 2.0 litres in displacement rely on the damping effect of their engine mounts to reduce the vibrations to acceptable levels. I'm not saying that what you experienced is attributable to this fact, but it is something to consider.

Williamtaylor33 Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:58 pm

TroySmith80 wrote:
I didn't SEE any vibration on the bostig. In fact, when we started it up and were just looking, i commented on how smooth it looked. And i rested my hand on the valve cover and there was almost no movement. Driving was a different story though.
Thats not my experience at all. Maybe i missed it...but did you drive a V.1 or a V.2? They totally changed the mounting setup with the newest version of the conversion.
I have driven several conversions and own a bostig. And have never have any vibration issues.
I drove a Tiico converted syncro westy yesterday and was surprised at the vibration. My wife even comments that she thinks that the zetec is smoother than the old WBX'er that was back there before.
That being said i think the 2.5 subaru would be a fine choice

TroySmith80 Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:59 pm

It was a V2.0, completed within the last several weeks. Brand new Ford Racing motor.

I want to be clear though, i would be absolutely thrilled to have a Bostig in my van. The improvement over stock is huge, and the install looked great. I just happen to personally like the subaru a little better.

Crughy Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:10 pm

[quote="wcdennis"]If you do a little research on basic engine geometry you will come across this: Quote: Boxers are one of only three cylinder layouts that have a natural dynamic balance; the others being the straight-6 and the V12. These engines can run very smoothly and free of unbalanced forces with a four-stroke cycle and do not require a balance shaft or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in other engine configurations.

I always thought that it was the 5 cyl engines that had such balances, by design?

JP

redcanoe Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:42 pm

Troy where did you manage to find a couple of vans to try out ? Westy gathering of somekind.

Fantastic thread, great reading

wcdennis Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:45 pm

[quote="Crughy"] wcdennis wrote: If you do a little research on basic engine geometry you will come across this: Quote: Boxers are one of only three cylinder layouts that have a natural dynamic balance; the others being the straight-6 and the V12. These engines can run very smoothly and free of unbalanced forces with a four-stroke cycle and do not require a balance shaft or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in other engine configurations.

I always thought that it was the 5 cyl engines that had such balances, by design?

JP

Here is what I found:
Quote: A five-cylinder engine gets a power stroke every 144 degrees (720 5 = 144). Since each power stroke lasts 180 degrees, this means that a power stroke is always in effect. Because of uneven levels of torque during the expansion strokes divided among the five cylinders, there is increased secondary-order vibrations. At higher engine speeds, there is an uneven third-order vibration from the crankshaft which occurs every 144 degrees. Because the power strokes have some overlap, a five-cylinder engine may run more smoothly than a non-overlapping four-cylinder engine, but only at limited mid-range speeds where second and third-order vibrations are lower.
I'm not an expert on this subject. I'm just passing along information that I found interesting.

ftp2leta Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:13 pm

[quote="Crughy"] wcdennis wrote: If you do a little research on basic engine geometry you will come across this: Quote: Boxers are one of only three cylinder layouts that have a natural dynamic balance; the others being the straight-6 and the V12. These engines can run very smoothly and free of unbalanced forces with a four-stroke cycle and do not require a balance shaft or counterweights on the crankshaft to balance the weight of the reciprocating parts, which are required in other engine configurations.

I always thought that it was the 5 cyl engines that had such balances, by design?

JP

Basic physic...

Weight VS gravity, nothing else. Push pull. positive versus negative

I don't beleive inline 6 or V12 are better than V8, pure BS.

It's a question of balance, good technology and wisdom. An inline 4 can be as smooth as any other engine. It's just a question of balance.

5cyl, 3 VS 2, BS, it's a good engine design, nothing else.

Single cylinder VS twin, single have more toque and twin are more smooth, power wise they are very similar.

The real question is will it fit in my engine bay?

Ben

TroySmith80 Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:56 pm

Through the Yahoo Subaru Vanagon group i've been doing a little networking. I also called the guys at Bostig and they hooked me up with a gentleman who had recently installed their kit. All these people were in Portland so i drove over there for the day on Sunday. A bit of a drive for me, but well worth the education.

redcanoe wrote: Troy where did you manage to find a couple of vans to try out ? Westy gathering of somekind.

Fantastic thread, great reading



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group