TheSamba.com :: View topic

Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:40 pm

I'd thought to keep that RV 1.8 for an air cooled tin top, possibly document process with a "thrifty" angle to it. Anyhow..... that 1.8 block went to scrap metal recycle. Not sure I kept the head. If not, a mistake; possibly quite useful for a future ABA (or AEG ?) 50º.

I wonder if comparing same for same, (rebuilt or same miles), would a 1.8 or 2.0 last longer mechanically speaking, than a 1.7 ? i.e. I know VW installed oil squirters on some 2.0 engines. Did the 1.7 have hydro lifters?

The 2.0 would certainly be a better match to the weight of a Vanagon.

Neil.

Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:05 pm

The 1.7 and 1.8 had the same stroke. The 1.8 had longer rods and 1.5 mm larger bore. There was an 80s rabbit that had a 1 barrel carb. It looked similar to a 1600 air cooled soled but was somewhat electronic. They were a problem. Lots of tech bulletins.

As far as cutting the chassis for clearance, I’d be disappointed to see that done on a van I might be purchasing.

Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:33 pm

not all vans survive the current owner ;-)

I'd rather see it cut and welded with a proper gusset. than beat out with heat and a hammer.

anyways.. just wanted to point out to the OP that this is a fact for most of the FI intakes.
the Carb'd intake requires a beveled angle adapter to level a carb. I've seen those very rarely for the 32/36 progressive carb.

as for my van with the frame cut, I'm sure a next owner wouldn't mind that with the 1.8T i've been running.. ;-)

Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:53 pm

MarkWard wrote: As far as cutting the chassis for clearance, I’d be disappointed to see that done on a van I might be purchasing.

IIRC, there's a Digifant intake manifold that might clear the chassis.

@ the OP: in terms of clearance between engine and the van chassis, Foreign Auto Supply sells a brand new Tiico/2.0 head. They might be able to source a used Tiico intake. Oh and speaking of Tiico, I only recently learned this but the actual Tiico engine support bars can run the gamut in terms of quality and possibly proper fit. How "bad" that aspect may be, I don't know.

Neil.

Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:23 pm

Vanagon Nut wrote:
I wonder if comparing same for same, (rebuilt or same miles), would a 1.8 or 2.0 last longer mechanically speaking, than a 1.7 ? i.e. I know VW installed oil squirters on some 2.0 engines. Did the 1.7 have hydro lifters?

The 2.0 would certainly be a better match to the weight of a Vanagon.

Neil.

I think it's a toss-up between the 1.8s and the AEB 2.0s in terms of longevity. They're both very durable. But, yes, the AEB and the earlier Audi 80 2.0 both have over 120 lb ft of torque, and that's about the minimum I'd want in a Vanagon.

The 1.7 never had hydraulic lifters. In fact, the early 1.8s didn't have them either. It wasn't until the Mk2s came out, that they went to hydraulic lifters. The 1.7 has smaller valves and a low 8.2:1 compression ratio, so it didn't make very good power and its in-town fuel economy was fairly poor. In Rabbits and Sciroccos, highway mileage was great, but if you drove with a heavy foot primarily in the city, you could be looking at 21 mpg - which is pretty poor for a 2100 lb car. I have a feeling in a Vanagon, a 1.7 would be pretty thirsty.

Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:00 pm

I did that conversation bosh csi in like 1984 with diesel parts. I bought the 82 vanagon diesel with a bad motor. I could keep up with other vans at the time. I am not sure I pull a WXB for that conversation but if your motor is bad and you have this one I might go for it. If you get the correct manifold you don’t have to cut the frame. Like other have said I would go for a 1.8 or 2.0 myself. I have the 2.0 in my van. John

Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:04 am

Here's a counterpoint to the frame cutting problem. I have long thought about using Automatic Vanagon axels instead of the manual transmission ones, as the automatic ones are slightly different lengths, meaning that you could move the motor over to avoid cutting the frame. IIRC, I did the measuring back in the day and the auto shafts were the same aggregate lengths as the manuals. I cant remember now at all, but the documentation is out there. You would have to modify the front trans mount, and the shifter would be at a slightly greater angle, but most likely not enough to affect anything. I never tried this as a possibility, but I always did wonder if it would work. Seemed like a good possibility to not having to modify the frame.

Tue Nov 17, 2020 5:19 am

Any decent machine shop can cut and section or lengthen the axle shaft.

Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:31 am

it's really not that big of a deal on the frame modification if one has half the talent
the weakness would only manifest itself in a total rear end collision where it would cause it to fold there.. which it likely will anyways in uncut van.

it causes no long term weakness and in my van with the frame notch, I have tow'd a 2nd van many times and at times ~1000miles..
perceived problems of the notch are speculative and not proven issues over the long time use..

but hey.. I've moved transaxles over/under and forward for other applications before.. *see my gallery for pics of a Inline 2.5l 5cyl upright & under the decklid ;-)

Tue Nov 17, 2020 8:15 am

valvecovergasket wrote: Robw_z wrote: 1.7's are looked down on even in the Rabbit world.

this

i cant imagine the engine youd be coming from for that to feel like an upgrade, unless it was a) no engine, or b) the NA 1.6D but even then.... The 1.6NA Diesel in a Vanagon is just unbelievably underpowered: it makes a 2CV seem frisky!! :shock:

Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:01 am

Jake de Villiers wrote: valvecovergasket wrote: Robw_z wrote: 1.7's are looked down on even in the Rabbit world.

this

i cant imagine the engine youd be coming from for that to feel like an upgrade, unless it was a) no engine, or b) the NA 1.6D but even then.... The 1.6NA Diesel in a Vanagon is just unbelievably underpowered: it makes a 2CV seem frisky!! :shock:

You don't think 48 hp and 71 lb/ft of torque is sufficient to move a 3400 lb van with authority? :)

I honestly think the diesel Vanagon has to be the slowest road going vehicle built. I have one road test on the diesel Vanagon where they timed the 0-60 acceleration. It was 41.1 seconds. Top speed at maximum rpms in 4th gear on these was 65 mph, but in reality, any highway gradient would have these rolling along at 45-50 mph.

Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:27 am

But don't forget, this was the height of the fabricated gas shortage. Diesel fuel was way less money than regular, mpg was rated at 29 city/highway and the national speed limit was still 55. So in the context of the times, "Such a Deal".

Tue Nov 17, 2020 10:40 am

D Clymer wrote: Vanagon Nut wrote:
The 2.0 would certainly be a better match to the weight of a Vanagon.

The 1.7 never had hydraulic lifters. In fact, the early 1.8s didn't have them either. It wasn't until the Mk2s came out, that they went to hydraulic lifters. The 1.7 has smaller valves and a low 8.2:1 compression ratio, so it didn't make very good power and its in-town fuel economy was fairly poor. In Rabbits and Sciroccos, highway mileage was great, but if you drove with a heavy foot primarily in the city, you could be looking at 21 mpg - which is pretty poor for a 2100 lb car. I have a feeling in a Vanagon, a 1.7 would be pretty thirsty.

Well, for the OP, who appears long gone now ;) from my own experience and what I've read, if he has a WBX manual 4 speed, stock diamater tires, a 2.0 or 1.8 should get him ~ 21 MPG (US gallon) at ~ 65 MPH.

If I recall, the old style lifters required a "kit" of shims to adjust the valves. I've never done the job but overhauling a hydro head would likely be easier.

Neil.

Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:43 am

D Clymer wrote: Jake de Villiers wrote: valvecovergasket wrote: Robw_z wrote: 1.7's are looked down on even in the Rabbit world.

this

i cant imagine the engine youd be coming from for that to feel like an upgrade, unless it was a) no engine, or b) the NA 1.6D but even then.... The 1.6NA Diesel in a Vanagon is just unbelievably underpowered: it makes a 2CV seem frisky!! :shock:

You don't think 48 hp and 71 lb/ft of torque is sufficient to move a 3400 lb van with authority? :)

I honestly think the diesel Vanagon has to be the slowest road going vehicle built. I have one road test on the diesel Vanagon where they timed the 0-60 acceleration. It was 41.1 seconds. Top speed at maximum rpms in 4th gear on these was 65 mph, but in reality, any highway gradient would have these rolling along at 45-50 mph. A loaded high top camper is quite a bit heavier than 3400 lbs!!! The van we rented in Europe only hit 60mph twice - on long downhill stretches of autobahn...and 0-50 was well over a minute. Nope, not adequate, not since the fifties! :shock:

Wed Nov 18, 2020 10:01 am

Vanagon Nut wrote: maybe for a budget Vanagon engine conversion. But just because it's lying around doesn't mean its worth my time/money. ;)

can we get this added to the header for this forum?

:lol: