Author |
Message |
Rallyedude Samba Member
Joined: December 06, 2009 Posts: 206 Location: Aylmer, QC
|
Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: VR6 Vanagon Q's |
|
|
What mount system are people using, not the KEP adapter, but the motor mounts, just home brew custom? just wanted some ideas here. thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D Clymer Samba Member
Joined: December 22, 2005 Posts: 2978 Location: Issaquah, WA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are two forum members here who have done VR6 Vanagons, but it looks like neither of them are watching the topics right now.
I have looked at the VR6 Vanagon that NinjaBern built. He used a KEP adaptor plate and then designed his own rear mount setup using the factory Vanagon crossmember and some Chevy rubber mount bushings. I don't recall what he used to go from the engine block to the rubber mounts, but I'm pretty sure he fabricated some brackets.
The VR6 definitely powers a Vanagon well, but it isn't a particularly clean fit. Since this conversion is kind of the road less traveled anyway, it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanagon Nut Samba Member
Joined: February 08, 2008 Posts: 10347 Location: Sunshine Coast B.C.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D Clymer wrote: |
.....
The VR6 definitely powers a Vanagon well, but it isn't a particularly clean fit. Since this conversion is kind of the road less traveled anyway, it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
Hi David.
Are you speaking of the 1990's 2.8?
Is this it? (Looks like a Vanagon install):
_________________ 1981 Westy DIY 15º ABA
1988 West DIY 50º ABA
VE7TBN |
|
Back to top |
|
|
toomanyveedubs Samba Member
Joined: November 26, 2007 Posts: 596 Location: Great White North
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
D Clymer wrote: |
.....
The VR6 definitely powers a Vanagon well, but it isn't a particularly clean fit. Since this conversion is kind of the road less traveled anyway, it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
Hi David.
Are you speaking of the 1990's 2.8?
Is this it? (Looks like a Vanagon install):
|
thats not a VR6.
looks like an american V6 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jeremysmithatshawdotca Samba Member
Joined: February 11, 2002 Posts: 2530 Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
toomanyveedubs wrote: |
thats not a VR6.
looks like an american V6 |
It's an Audi v6, you can see the Audi rings on the covers on each side. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanagon Nut Samba Member
Joined: February 08, 2008 Posts: 10347 Location: Sunshine Coast B.C.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
toomanyveedubs wrote: |
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
D Clymer wrote: |
.....
The VR6 definitely powers a Vanagon well, but it isn't a particularly clean fit. Since this conversion is kind of the road less traveled anyway, it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
Hi David.
Are you speaking of the 1990's 2.8?
Is this it? (Looks like a Vanagon install):
|
thats not a VR6.
looks like an american V6 |
I forgot the word "Audi"
Was suggesting it was an Audi 2.8 V6 as per Davids comments.
Double checked. Another pic from this page:
http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?p=2237365
They seem quite similar. Also I can just make out the Audi logo on both engines.
_________________ 1981 Westy DIY 15º ABA
1988 West DIY 50º ABA
VE7TBN |
|
Back to top |
|
|
onwardtothestars Samba Member
Joined: April 04, 2007 Posts: 225 Location: Hazenville Pass Wyoming
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That Audi V6 would bolt up with a south african 5 cylinder bellhousing, as well as the Audi V8 (pre-FSI versions) _________________ lots of VW's |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D Clymer Samba Member
Joined: December 22, 2005 Posts: 2978 Location: Issaquah, WA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
D Clymer wrote: |
.....
The VR6 definitely powers a Vanagon well, but it isn't a particularly clean fit. Since this conversion is kind of the road less traveled anyway, it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
Hi David.
Are you speaking of the 1990's 2.8?
Is this it? (Looks like a Vanagon install):
|
Hi Neil,
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. To me this is a better fit than a VR6. The oil sump is a strange shape on these, and it hangs lower than it should, but the engine itself is an intriguingly nice fit in the Vanagon bay. Here's how it compares spec wise with the early VR6.
VR6
2792cc
172hp
173 lb/ft torque
Audi V6
2771cc
172 hp
184 lb/ft torque
I just rattled these off from memory. Many people will argue that the Audi engine feels weak compared to a VR6, but the problem more likely had to do with the heavy Audis they were installed in. I've seen many of these engines at the local Pull a Part yards and they've all gone to the crusher along with the bodyshell.
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
regis101 Samba Member
Joined: July 28, 2005 Posts: 2078 Location: Livermore, Ca
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are those things all aluminum or an iron block with aluminum heads?
Curious of the weight.
Just Googled this up for some info. It's a start.
http://www.12v.org/ _________________ Peace, Regis |
|
Back to top |
|
|
toomanyveedubs Samba Member
Joined: November 26, 2007 Posts: 596 Location: Great White North
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I want to see a v10 TDI stuffed in a vanagon
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
D Clymer Samba Member
Joined: December 22, 2005 Posts: 2978 Location: Issaquah, WA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
regis101 wrote: |
Are those things all aluminum or an iron block with aluminum heads?
Curious of the weight.
Just Googled this up for some info. It's a start.
http://www.12v.org/ |
They are iron block/aluminum head. There was a later 3.0 liter version that has an aluminum block. I don't know the exact weight, but my guess is between 360 and 380 lbs.
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
syncro vr6 Samba Member
Joined: October 31, 2008 Posts: 11 Location: monroe,wa
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
kep adapter plate with stock cradle moved back a few inches. I used stock vr6 mounts with two bars similar to the inline 4 conversions. I'll post some pictures later. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanagon Nut Samba Member
Joined: February 08, 2008 Posts: 10347 Location: Sunshine Coast B.C.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D Clymer wrote: |
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
D Clymer wrote: |
.....
..... it might be good to try an Audi V6 instead. This would fit better, and has the same displacement and hp. And like the VR6, they are practically free these days.
David |
Hi David.
Are you speaking of the 1990's 2.8?
Is this it? (Looks like a Vanagon install):
|
Hi Neil,
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. To me this is a better fit than a VR6. The oil sump is a strange shape on these, and it hangs lower than it should, but the engine itself is an intriguingly nice fit in the Vanagon bay. Here's how it compares spec wise with the early VR6.
VR6
2792cc
172hp
173 lb/ft torque
Audi V6
2771cc
172 hp
184 lb/ft torque
I just rattled these off from memory. Many people will argue that the Audi engine feels weak compared to a VR6, but the problem more likely had to do with the heavy Audis they were installed in. I've seen many of these engines at the local Pull a Part yards and they've all gone to the crusher along with the bodyshell.
David |
In looking for images, found this site
http://www.12v.org/engine/
Has lots of info it seems. The oil pan almost seems shallow looking at a few of the images (drawings)
Couldn't find V angle info for the older Mk3 VR6, but it seems the newer one has a "narrow" V angle. Does the 2.8 12V have the same or similar angle? The above link sez the Audi 2.8 has a 90* V. Does this allow for a better fit in the Vanagon when compared to the VR6? (no mods to engine lid?)
Thanks for the specs David. From memory? Wow. I have trouble recalling my street address.....
Neil.
Pic of oil pan found on 12V forum at AudiWorld
http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?t=2593706&highlight=oil+pan
V angles
_________________ 1981 Westy DIY 15º ABA
1988 West DIY 50º ABA
VE7TBN |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanagon Nut Samba Member
Joined: February 08, 2008 Posts: 10347 Location: Sunshine Coast B.C.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D Clymer wrote: |
Hi Neil,
Yes, that's what I was thinking of. To me this is a better fit than a VR6. The oil sump is a strange shape on these, and it hangs lower than it should, but the engine itself is an intriguingly nice fit in the Vanagon bay. ......
David |
Ah. Now I see what you mean about the oil pan. There's is an "upper" and "lower" piece.
As far as which 12V to use, one might consider looking for the updated AFC engine. (based upon this websites observations)
http://www.12v.org/engine/index.php?section=fe _________________ 1981 Westy DIY 15º ABA
1988 West DIY 50º ABA
VE7TBN |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D Clymer Samba Member
Joined: December 22, 2005 Posts: 2978 Location: Issaquah, WA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
In looking for images, found this site
http://www.12v.org/engine/
Has lots of info it seems. The oil pan almost seems shallow looking at a few of the images (drawings)
Couldn't find V angle info for the older Mk3 VR6, but it seems the newer one has a "narrow" V angle. Does the 2.8 12V have the same or similar angle? The above link sez the Audi 2.8 has a 90* V. Does this allow for a better fit in the Vanagon when compared to the VR6? (no mods to engine lid?)
Thanks for the specs David. From memory? Wow. I have trouble recalling my street address.....
Neil.
Pic of oil pan found on 12V forum at AudiWorld
http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?t=2593706&highlight=oil+pan
V angles
|
Hi Neil,
The VR6 is kind of an unusual engine in that it has a 15 degree included angle. Normal V6 engines are usually 60 degrees, and the Audi and Mercedes V6s are 90 degrees with 30 degree offset crank pins for even firing. The VR6 is in layout really more of a squished inline 6. The downside to this compact layout is that it is quite tall and extends well above the cargo floor level on a Vanagon.
The Audi V6 by comparison is a 90 degree V6. Each bank sits at 45 degrees from vertical. When you consider that a VW inline 4 sits comfortably under the rear engine lid on a diesel Vanagon when mounted at 50 degrees, it's obvious that this Audi V6 would come close to fitting under the level of the rear luggage floor. Unfortunately, the two stage intake manifold is quite tall and that is what sticks up beyond the level of the cargo floor.
Interestingly, that second photo you posted of the Audi V6 in a regular Audi car shows a simpler and lower profile intake manifold. This engine looks like it would actually clear the lid. I'm guessing that this is a euro only 2.6 liter version of the Audi V6. The smaller V6 didn't have the two stage intake manifold.
In some ways the Audi V6 presents an intriguing conversion possibility. Aside from being a little too tall, it fits very neatly into the Vanagon engine bay. In a Syncro it would probably be a perfect fit.
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vanagon Nut Samba Member
Joined: February 08, 2008 Posts: 10347 Location: Sunshine Coast B.C.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="D Clymer"]
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
.....
Couldn't find V angle info for the older Mk3 VR6, but it seems the newer one has a "narrow" V angle. Does the 2.8 12V have the same or similar angle? The above link sez the Audi 2.8 has a 90* V. Does this allow for a better fit in the Vanagon when compared to the VR6? (no mods to engine lid?)
.....
Hi Neil,
The VR6 is kind of an unusual engine in that it has a 15 degree included angle. Normal V6 engines are usually 60 degrees, and the Audi and Mercedes V6s are 90 degrees with 30 degree offset crank pins for even firing. The VR6 is in layout really more of a squished inline 6. The downside to this compact layout is that it is quite tall and extends well above the cargo floor level on a Vanagon.
The Audi V6 by comparison is a 90 degree V6. Each bank sits at 45 degrees from vertical. When you consider that a VW inline 4 sits comfortably under the rear engine lid on a diesel Vanagon when mounted at 50 degrees, it's obvious that this Audi V6 would come close to fitting under the level of the rear luggage floor. Unfortunately, the two stage intake manifold is quite tall and that is what sticks up beyond the level of the cargo floor.
Interestingly, that second photo you posted of the Audi V6 in a regular Audi car shows a simpler and lower profile intake manifold. This engine looks like it would actually clear the lid. I'm guessing that this is a euro only 2.6 liter version of the Audi V6. The smaller V6 didn't have the two stage intake manifold.
In some ways the Audi V6 presents an intriguing conversion possibility. Aside from being a little too tall, it fits very neatly into the Vanagon engine bay. In a Syncro it would probably be a perfect fit.
David |
Thanks much David.
Right. That makes sense. I can see a 45* bank compared to the stock DV mount angle.
You are FAR more knowledgable than I of things VW, but isn't the 2.6 intake mani also a 2 pc. design?
I would venture a guess that one might be able to swap intakes, but for that hassle (finding one?) and possible loss of ground clearance, well...... <shrugs>
At least with either engine, it looks like no cutting is needed at forward portion of engine compartment, though maybe some would be needed at the "firewall" (?)
Another bonus point for the AFC engine. Lower octane.
Pics of 2.8 and 2.6 in a Vanagon (SA)
http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/thomas/wanda/engine/index.htm
Seems either one requires lid mods though maybe not so much with the 2.6 sans plastic? _________________ 1981 Westy DIY 15º ABA
1988 West DIY 50º ABA
VE7TBN |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rallyedude Samba Member
Joined: December 06, 2009 Posts: 206 Location: Aylmer, QC
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
audi v6 internal parts are more expensive particularly the 30v versions(cam chain tensioners @ 500$ each) . I'm a vr guy have built very many, I've had MKI cab , MKII G/J and syncro, MKIII, built syncro passat vr, turbo vr's syncro 'rado vr turbo, etc. Some of the mounts I've seen look like those mustang mounts people use on the 034 forums. I was thinking of using the stock MKIII golf style"cup"bracket welded to the subframe. Remove it, then weld it to the stock vanagon rear bar, then run stock MKIII style mounts. My build is going into a 2wd Doka so i don't believe upper clearance will be an issue. thanks for the replies would love to see some pics of mounts though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
regis101 Samba Member
Joined: July 28, 2005 Posts: 2078 Location: Livermore, Ca
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good info on the mysite link. _________________ Peace, Regis |
|
Back to top |
|
|
regis101 Samba Member
Joined: July 28, 2005 Posts: 2078 Location: Livermore, Ca
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good info on the mysite link. _________________ Peace, Regis |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D Clymer Samba Member
Joined: December 22, 2005 Posts: 2978 Location: Issaquah, WA
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vanagon Nut wrote: |
Thanks much David.
Right. That makes sense. I can see a 45* bank compared to the stock DV mount angle.
You are FAR more knowledgable than I of things VW, but isn't the 2.6 intake mani also a 2 pc. design?
I would venture a guess that one might be able to swap intakes, but for that hassle (finding one?) and possible loss of ground clearance, well...... <shrugs>
At least with either engine, it looks like no cutting is needed at forward portion of engine compartment, though maybe some would be needed at the "firewall" (?)
Another bonus point for the AFC engine. Lower octane.
Pics of 2.8 and 2.6 in a Vanagon (SA)
http://mysite.mweb.co.za/residents/thomas/wanda/engine/index.htm
Seems either one requires lid mods though maybe not so much with the 2.6 sans plastic? |
Hi again, Neil.
Yes you're right. I believe the 2.6 manifold is also a two piece design. What I was trying to say is that the 2.8 manifold is a 2 stage (variable length) intake manifold. It actually has two sets of runners - a long narrow set, and a wide short set, and the engine management signals a vacuum actuator to switch runner paths at about 4000 rpms. Long runners for good low end torque, and wide short runners for higher rpm power. The 2.8 has this manifold, but the 2.6 does not. It looks to me like the variable length intake sits a bit taller.
I just realized I didn't answer your original question about the VR6 angle. As you stated, some late VR6s do have a smaller included angle compared to the Mk3 VR6s. However, it is just the latest 3.6 VR6 as used in the Passat that has the smaller included angle - 8 degrees as opposed to 15 degrees. It is basically a whole new engine. All of the other VR6s - 2.8s and 3.2s used in MK3, Mk4, and Mk5 cars are still 15 degrees like the original.
BTW, how has your ABA conversion been treating you?
David |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|