TheSamba.com :: View topic

Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:07 am

Hey there my dub doods.
So i am currently in the process of tackling an upright conversion for my Type 4 2.0l engine that came from a 1978 bus. I am putting it into my 69 Westy. I chose to fork up the cash for the DTM from Jake Raby. I am wondering if you all know of any effective ways to maintain the function of the heater boxes with the upright conversion. I do not want to ditch the boxes for j tubes or whatever, cause I wanna heat my bus, but also enjoy the Type 4 power.
Please let me know of any modifications, tips, suggestions, good luck charms, etc. for me to be able to figure a way to keep my heater boxes in working order.
Cheers!

Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:01 am

your best bet would be contact the T4 store/jake and see what the deal is. if he made it without heat, there is a reason. I can assure you that if you try and add a way to make heat and it was not designed to, you will have issues

Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:26 am

I would consider using a type 4 heater fan. Don't cut holes in your new DTM shroud.

Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:35 am

Aeromech, I have definitely thought about installing one of those fans into the engine bay, I have even thought about using the method of installing it to where it is hooked up to the back of the cabin in the bus so that it recirculates the air that way instead of pulling the air from the engine compartment (seen it done by someone here on the forums). But I understand that the heat boxes need continuous air flow to operate properly, so would you suggest setting it up so that the fan is always on and blowing air into the boxes?

Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:44 am

I have no experience doing this so I can't be much help. Maybe use two fans.

Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:16 am

install an auxiliary heater and don't use heater boxes.

Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:24 am

The Type 4 heater booster fan is a wimp. If you want to go this route buy an RV fan. It will move several times more air than a Type 4 fan.

Gas heaters are nice. The one in my Thing will be giving warm air in 15 seconds or so and hot air within a minute and a half.

Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:37 pm

+1 on the gas heater...notchboy is a good source :)

Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:43 pm

BTW - if you haven't already considered it - putting that 2.0 into that 1969 you might want to consider upgrading the rear IRS to a later one so you have forged steel hubs driving the rear wheels instead of cast drums.

Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:30 pm

One thing about heater boxes is that they require a constant flow of air.
Without a fan-propelled flow of air you risk damage.

Sounds like a dynamite excuse to get a gas heater!

Heater boxes weigh a ton, and its weight at the rear; where it's already too heavy.
One of the best things to improve performance on a type 4 is a proper header..

Maybe consider that squirrel-cage setup on the alt pulley of the aircooled Vanagon?

Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:10 pm

The quickest way to imbalance the work that makes the DTM efficient, is to start adding air ducts to it. Please do not do this, as every attempt I made resulted in a completely loss of the critical balance of cooling between all 4 cylinders.

You won't see a single one of my engines with a DTM that has heater boxes, and there's a reason for this that you'll learn the hard way.

Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:15 pm

Thankyou all for your advice.
SGKent- Do you have any specific recommendations as to which later IRS system would be a good swap. This isnt a topic I have heard of before. Maybe there is a specific year that they switched to forged steel? Are there quality after market parts I can buy new?

Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:36 am

drkblusea wrote: Thankyou all for your advice.
SGKent- Do you have any specific recommendations as to which later IRS system would be a good swap. This isnt a topic I have heard of before. Maybe there is a specific year that they switched to forged steel? Are there quality after market parts I can buy new?

These are not parts you can buy from a catalog.

Essentially, the early bays drive axles turn the brake drums, and the wheels mount on the drums. Late bay axles turn a hub, which turns the wheel. The brake drum is then also mounted to the hub.

I have personally worked on less than fifty buses in my time, but I have seen two wallowed out rear stub/hub assemblies from stock late buses. I also routinely work on a '68 T2 with a 2110 that is driven HARD every day. (We're talking tires chirping with upshifts.) That bus has original German drums and stub axles, and is doing fine.

I do not personally think this is the first item that should be addressed with your swap. Listen to JR about the heat & hose connections; he designed the system! :D Spend the money on a gas heater from Notchboy instead and you'll be all set!

My two cents,
Robbie

Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:14 am

asiab3 wrote: drkblusea wrote: Thankyou all for your advice.
SGKent- Do you have any specific recommendations as to which later IRS system would be a good swap. This isnt a topic I have heard of before. Maybe there is a specific year that they switched to forged steel? Are there quality after market parts I can buy new?

These are not parts you can buy from a catalog.

Essentially, the early bays drive axles turn the brake drums, and the wheels mount on the drums. Late bay axles turn a hub, which turns the wheel. The brake drum is then also mounted to the hub.

I have personally worked on less than fifty buses in my time, but I have seen two wallowed out rear stub/hub assemblies from stock late buses. I also routinely work on a '68 T2 with a 2110 that is driven HARD every day. (We're talking tires chirping with upshifts.) That bus has original German drums and stub axles, and is doing fine.

I do not personally think this is the first item that should be addressed with your swap. Listen to JR about the heat & hose connections; he designed the system! :D Spend the money on a gas heater from Notchboy instead and you'll be all set!

My two cents,
Robbie

lots of early cracked drums here Robbie, and the wallowed hub issue is purely caused by the mechanic who tightened the nut. My guess is you got two buses that were worked on by the same shop. The nut has to be tightened to 253 ft lbs then if the cotter doesn't align, taken to the next alignment. That hub could probably take 250 - 300 HP without any issues when tightened correctly.

Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:59 am

VW upped the minimum torque on the axle nut for the Vanagon probably because the bus spec of 253ft*lbs had proven to be insufficient. The Vanagon nuts also have extra castellations in it so it may actually take less torque to align the cotter pin even though the minimum torque is much higher, in other words when using the Vanagon nut and Vanagon 360ft*lb torque spec the torque on the nut ends up being more precise.

I moved up to the Vanagon spec at least 20 years ago now and have experienced no problems whatsoever because I did so.

Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:11 am

I put an Espar Airtronic air heater in my westy. That is the route I would take. Not only does it provide plenty of heat when driving, it will cook me out when parked / camping. This is in winter in Colorado.

Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:41 am

What is the configuration of the interior of your bus? 7 seater, panel, camper etc. As it sounds like heater boxes are out of the question, what is the budget for some alternative heat that will both warm the back and provide defrost and floor heating for the cab area?

Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:18 pm

Wildthings wrote: VW upped the minimum torque on the axle nut for the Vanagon probably because the bus spec of 253ft*lbs had proven to be insufficient. The Vanagon nuts also have extra castellations in it so it may actually take less torque to align the cotter pin even though the minimum torque is much higher, in other words when using the Vanagon nut and Vanagon 360ft*lb torque spec the torque on the nut ends up being more precise.

I moved up to the Vanagon spec at least 20 years ago now and have experienced no problems whatsoever because I did so.

A Google search of "Vanagon axle 253 or 360" yielded several posts on various forums that the air cooled models were 253 and the water cooled 360. They also indicated that the water cooled models used a stronger internal spacer. I know for a fact that the late 1979 and later spacer bought FROM VW as a part is much thicker walled than the earlier models. I do not know when production made the change from old to new. I would suggest 253 on any 1971 - 1979 air cooled bay unless you know for a fact you have the later part number. There is a thread here somewhere. The later spacer is thicker and longer.

Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:25 pm

SGKent wrote: Wildthings wrote: VW upped the minimum torque on the axle nut for the Vanagon probably because the bus spec of 253ft*lbs had proven to be insufficient. The Vanagon nuts also have extra castellations in it so it may actually take less torque to align the cotter pin even though the minimum torque is much higher, in other words when using the Vanagon nut and Vanagon 360ft*lb torque spec the torque on the nut ends up being more precise.

I moved up to the Vanagon spec at least 20 years ago now and have experienced no problems whatsoever because I did so.

A Google search of "Vanagon axle 253 or 360" yielded several posts on various forums that the air cooled models were 253 and the water cooled 360. They also indicated that the water cooled models used a stronger internal spacer. I know for a fact that the late 1979 and later spacer bought FROM VW as a part is much thicker walled than the earlier models. I do not know when production made the change from old to new. I would suggest 253 on any 1971 - 1979 air cooled bay unless you know for a fact you have the later part number. There is a thread here somewhere. The later spacer is thicker and longer.

You seemed to have totally missed the point but thanks for proving my argument for me anyway. On a Vanagon either an aircooled or water cooled the spec is 360ft*lbs and then continue tightening to the next hole (<36°), while the spec for the bay is 253ft*lbs and tighten to the next hole (<60°) which means the Vanagon spec range is narrower than the Bay spec range. On a Bay the range will typically lie between 253ft*lbs and 1000ft*lbs while the Vanagon with its narrower range will be at least 360ft*lbs and will probably not exceed 800ft*lb.

Of course if your object is for the the hub to work or the spacer to be crushed then use the obsolete Bay spec. For myself I will continue to use the spec that lessens the chance the hub will move while also lessening the chance that the spacer will be crushed.

Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:46 pm

Quote: On a Vanagon either an aircooled or water cooled the spec is 360ft*lbs

from what I read it depends on who you ask and which publisher. Do you have a link to the technical bulletin showing the change?

Here is my point. This image below is from a 2006 post in the Vanagon forum. The spacer on the left is the one that came with a 1981 air cooled Vanagon (it was posted by someone I know who owns that 1981 Vanagon). The one on the right is the replacement VW now sells that he upgraded to. The torque for the nut and the thinner spacer in 1981 was still 253 ft lbs. It was raised to 360 ft lbs on later water cooled models that use the thicker spacer on the right. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest everyone should torque the older style thinner spacer to 360 ft lbs. VW felt there was some need to use the thicker spacer when they upgraded the specifications for the axles - probably the greater HP in the water cooled engines. That is my opinion.