Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts  See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
Any reason not to build a WBX bigger than 2.2?
Page: 1, 2  Next
Forum Index -> Vanagon Share: Facebook Twitter
Reply to topic
Print View
Quick sort: Show newest posts on top | Show oldest posts on top View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2393
Location: Bozeman MT
SCM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:20 pm    Post subject: Any reason not to build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

Hopefully I'm just getting ahead of myself but until my mechanic tells me otherwise I'm starting to research options for a new motor for my van. As much as Suby power intriques me, I live too far from any experienced installers to feel comfortable going that route.

I stumbled upon this thread where someone eluded to the possibility that building a WBXer any bigger than 2.2L should maybe be avoided.

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=20

What are some reasons for that?
_________________
'91 Westfalia GL Automatic w/Peloquin
2.3L GoWesty Engine


Last edited by SCM on Thu May 19, 2011 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mariusstrom
Samba Member


Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 745
Location: Bellevue, WA
mariusstrom is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Why not build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

SCM wrote:
Hopefully I'm just getting ahead of myself but until my mechanic tells me otherwise I'm starting to research options for a new motor for my van. As much as Suby power intriques me, I live too far from any experienced installers to feel comfortable going that route.

I stumbled upon this thread where someone eluded to the possibility that building a WBXer any bigger than 2.2L should maybe be avoided.

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=20

What are some reasons for that?

I don't see anything in that thread indicating that >2.2L should be avoided, other than "it's more expensive".
_________________
Marius Strom http://www.marius.org/
Otto: 1988 Vanagon Syncro Westy Camper
Felix: 1967 Deluxe Beetle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Facebook Twitter Gallery Classifieds Feedback
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2393
Location: Bozeman MT
SCM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Why not build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

mariusstrom wrote:
I don't see anything in that thread indicating that >2.2L should be avoided, other than "it's more expensive".


Insyncro said "I am not a fan of building the waterboxer past 2.2 myself.
Boston Bob was a good friend and he schooled me when I contacted him to build me a superboxer
".

I also wonder if a performance-to-reliability issue is what has tencent sticking with 2.2L engines so far.
_________________
'91 Westfalia GL Automatic w/Peloquin
2.3L GoWesty Engine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
insyncro
Banned


Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 15087
Location: New York
insyncro is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMHO, 2.2 done properly is plenty.
Larger needs premium fuel.
If you have to have larger than 2.2, I would highly recommend buying directly from GoWesty.
You will get a warranty.
Does your mechanic truely understand all of the "needs and the does and dont's" of building a waterboxer larger than 2.2???
Can he handle it???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mariusstrom
Samba Member


Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 745
Location: Bellevue, WA
mariusstrom is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Why not build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

SCM wrote:
mariusstrom wrote:
I don't see anything in that thread indicating that >2.2L should be avoided, other than "it's more expensive".


Insyncro said "I am not a fan of building the waterboxer past 2.2 myself.
Boston Bob was a good friend and he schooled me when I contacted him to build me a superboxer
".

I also wonder if a performance-to-reliability issue is what has tencent sticking with 2.2L engines so far.

Ahh, I missed that. My assumption (complete assumption) is that when you're making the cylinders bigger, you're necessarily decreasing the strength of the heads (since the "hole" in the head is bigger). Also may be cooling issues with the larger combustion that would happen.

Again, these are all guesses... I'm not an engine builder, YMMV, etc. Smile
_________________
Marius Strom http://www.marius.org/
Otto: 1988 Vanagon Syncro Westy Camper
Felix: 1967 Deluxe Beetle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Facebook Twitter Gallery Classifieds Feedback
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2393
Location: Bozeman MT
SCM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

insyncro wrote:
Does your mechanic truely understand all of the "needs and the does and dont's" of building a waterboxer larger than 2.2???
Can he handle it???


My mechanic wouldn't be building, he'd just be installing.

If it turns out that I do in fact need a new motor (conjecture at this point, my mech hasn't even seen it yet) the wait for a tencent might be too much to bare in which case I'll be looking at something from GW.
_________________
'91 Westfalia GL Automatic w/Peloquin
2.3L GoWesty Engine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
insyncro
Banned


Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 15087
Location: New York
insyncro is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Why not build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

SCM wrote:
mariusstrom wrote:
I don't see anything in that thread indicating that >2.2L should be avoided, other than "it's more expensive".


Insyncro said "I am not a fan of building the waterboxer past 2.2 myself.
Boston Bob was a good friend and he schooled me when I contacted him to build me a superboxer
".

I also wonder if a performance-to-reliability issue is what has tencent sticking with 2.2L engines so far.


I am in the process of installing a Vanistan 2.2 motor with all the bells and whistles right now.
I stand by all I have said in the past.
I don't see any need for more than Chris offers...if you can get one.

With that said, yes the availablity is short and the waiting list is long.
If you want a superboxer, GoWesty is the answer I would consider.
The warranty is what you are paying for.

dylan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
0to60in6min
Samba Member


Joined: November 27, 2006
Posts: 2977
Location: OR & CA (Oregon/California)
0to60in6min is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have the answer.. reliability may be?

but looking around I notice that the upper limit off a cylinder is 600cc, which means that a 2.4 (2400cc) WBX can be built... bigger than that, more cylinder will be needed..

see.. BMW, Mercedes, Porsche.. with a few exception from monster trucks with 5.6 liter V8 (700cc per cylinder)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
gl98115
Samba Member


Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Seattle, WA
gl98115 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently bought a camper with a 2.3 GoWesty motor. Runs pretty good on regular unleaded.
_________________
'87 faux-Syncro Westy w/ 2.3l GoWesty WBX
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
blakeck2
Samba Member


Joined: April 10, 2009
Posts: 939
Location: Los Osos, CA
blakeck2 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gl98115 wrote:
I recently bought a camper with a 2.3 GoWesty motor. Runs pretty good on regular unleaded.


If I were you I would stop using regular and use the premium like suggested on the website Shocked
_________________
1986 Vanagon Syncro GL, westy interior, GW 2.4 and all locked up

1973 Thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Facebook Classifieds Feedback
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2393
Location: Bozeman MT
SCM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blakeck2 wrote:
gl98115 wrote:
I recently bought a camper with a 2.3 GoWesty motor. Runs pretty good on regular unleaded.


If I were you I would stop using regular and use the premium like suggested on the website Shocked


They say that a 2.3 is alright to run on regular but they "recommend all Vanagons" use premium.

gl98115, what kind of mileage are you seeing and what kind of speeds can you maintain going up steep highway grades?
_________________
'91 Westfalia GL Automatic w/Peloquin
2.3L GoWesty Engine


Last edited by SCM on Thu May 19, 2011 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2393
Location: Bozeman MT
SCM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deleted double post
_________________
'91 Westfalia GL Automatic w/Peloquin
2.3L GoWesty Engine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
BillM
Samba Member


Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 1381
Location: Westerly,RI
BillM is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As said above I would really stop using regular in that 2.3. The few dollars saved is going to cost you later. I just sold a 91 with a Gowesty 2.3 and the po did nothing but use 91+. It had 50,000 miles and was still running excellent. Other than the usual preps I do to a "flip"'van all it needed was couple hoses engine wise. I am trying to talk another van that I maintain owner into ordering a 10cent engine. I'd love to install one. His throttle body set up really interests me. I want to see one first hand.

Bill
87 Westy
Zetec Turbo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Gallery Classifieds Feedback
gl98115
Samba Member


Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 262
Location: Seattle, WA
gl98115 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SCM wrote:
gl98115, what kind of mileage are you seeing and what kind of speeds can you maintain going up steep highway grades?


Depends on the steepness of the grade, of course. The van was regeared in 3rd and 4th and with two folks and gear with two bikes on the back it was either 70+mph @ 3500+rpm in 4th or 60 mph @ 4500 rpm in 3rd (with a little pedal left). Going up new Priest Grade toward Yos was only limited by the slowpoke in front of me. Enthusiastic interstate driving (speed limit +5) yielded about 17.5 mpg.

As always, YMMV.
_________________
'87 faux-Syncro Westy w/ 2.3l GoWesty WBX
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
funagon
Samba Member


Joined: March 09, 2006
Posts: 1305
Location: SLC, UT
funagon is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Any reason not to build a WBX bigger than 2.2? Reply with quote

SCM wrote:


I stumbled upon this thread where someone eluded to the possibility that building a WBXer any bigger than 2.2L should maybe be avoided.

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4...p;start=20

What are some reasons for that?


If you're a home builder, you can just replace the piston/cylinder combo for a nice upgrade to 2.2. Gowesty sells the piston kit to do this. If you want to go bigger you need to use a custom crank and custom rods, and possibly make some mods to the engine case. This higher compression engine will generate more heat and stress, so you'd better make sure your lubrication system and cooling system are up to snuff. In their larger engines gowesty adds oil jets to squirt the backside of the pistons, and maybe larger injectors. I would also add an external oil cooler to any WBX to control oil temps.

You need to worry about compression ratio (it should be increased over a stock WBX, but not too much!) and think about making the heads breathe a little better.

I agree with Dylan "insyncro." I have a 2.2 in my tin top passenger van. It's not a hot rod, but I've driven it fully loaded with gear across the U.S. and over the Rockies a few times. It does slow down on the high mountain passes, but it's reliable and gets me everywhere I want to go.

When I do a cost-benefit analysis, I think the most efficient/cheap way to go is to rebuild your 2.1 with 2.2 pistons, and upgrade to higher ratio rocker arms to help the heads breathe a little better (search the samba posts by tencentlife to read about upgrading to high ratio rockers). Adding an external oil cooler is a good idea for engine longevity.

Options for 2.2 pistons:

Gowesty sells a nice kit, 2.2 liter displacement, slightly higher compression. Goes on the same rods and put the heads back on. Nice increase in power.

Rocky Jennings has sold a custom set of rods and pistons to achieve 2.2 liters. I believe they are slightly higher compression than Gowesty's, which I would find desireable. (Or if I'm wrong about what Rocky offers, I think he has the experience to produce whatever you want, if you know what you want, that is.)

Chris (tencentlife on the samba) has machined custom pistons for the custom engines he sells, also higher compression than Gowesty's 2.2's. He's probably busy building engines; he may not want to produce pistons for an unknown engine that's not his own.

I have often thought about increasing the compression ratio, for more power, by taking the heads off my Gowesty 2.2's, removing the copper compression ring, and lapping the cylinders into the head (to reassemble without the compression ring). But then in order to make the water jacket seal properly I would then have to machine the head surface to remove material equal to the thickness of the missing compression ring (plus lapping depth?). Or, I could use a custom, thinner water jacket seal.

Sounds like a lot of work when, the truth is, my 2.2 WBX has been trouble free for many years and tens of thousands of miles of road tripping. I find it hard to justify pulling it out of the van just to squeeze a little more power out of it. More likely I'll tinker with a spare WBX so I can swap engines one day.
_________________
1990 GL 7-passenger
2.2 liter WBX
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
tencentlife
Samba Member


Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 9862
Location: Abiquiu, NM, USA
tencentlife is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The short answer to the OP's question is that there is no reason at all not to build a wbx engine larger than 2.2, but one ultimately encounters limitations imposed by geometry, mainly, and of course costs and the very limited range of available alternative parts. The parts limitation can be overcome with loads of money, but then in order to make that work one has to sell a lot of engines to recoup the R&D and the cash commitments to minimum production runs (thousands of dollars for even small runs of relatively cheap parts).

The various geometric factors get a little complex for laypeople to grasp so I'm not going to go into detail except to say that the dimension that most limits the growth of this particular platform is width, in that the water jackets and their fixed relationship to the cylinder heads limit how wide you can make the longblock without making expensive crankcase fabrications to alter that, modifications that would never be practical to do on even a limited production basis, and to my knowledge no one has ever done (except Oettinger whose answer was to add 2 more cylinders, with VWAG's sanction and backing; even so, that project must have been a massive suckhole for deutschmarks).

But a couple things that were said here jump out at me that I should probably swat down: one, the notion that 600cc is the maximum size for a cylinder? Where does that come from? That may have some truth insofar as what is convenient or economical but there are no principals of physics I am aware of that would dictate such a limit. There are engines in use where a man can walk in a circle inside one cylinder; its swept volume is larger than that of a VWvan (not the van's engine, the van!). I know my example is extreme but I think it illustrates the point.

The other was Dylan's remark that a larger engine would require premium fuel. What I suppose you meant was a larger GW engine does, but generally speaking the fuel requirement is completely under the control of the engine designer.

I myself have plans to produce a 2.4 wbx when I can invest the time to develop it, my plans are pretty well worked out and use existing parts and methods that will be practical and economical to implement in real life on my small production basis. My personal feeling about GW's range of sizes is that they are doing a great thing up to their 2.4, but the way they build their 2.5 is putting the parts they use at stress levels that I would not venture to do myself. I think that that is the size where it would have been better to do some crankcase and cylinder head modifications rather than making the cylinder walls thinner and thinner while those same cylinders are each producing more power; there are two lines on that graph (power vs. strength) and they are diverging, that's not the direction I would choose to go.
_________________
crazyvwvanman wrote:
You have some misconceptions.


Check out the Vanistan shop at https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/ , and my blog at https://intrepidoverland.com/news

"Official" IntrepidOverland thread for news and discussion:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...mp;start=0

I will not see your Samba PM. Please use the contact link at www.intrepidoverland.com
Product inquiries only please!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
msewalson
Samba Member


Joined: September 14, 2009
Posts: 543
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
msewalson is offline 

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I were you I would get an order into 10cent ASAP.

I've been in a vicious cycle on what engine to put in my syncro when the old wbx finally craps out. First it was a Zetec then the Suby 2.5 but I have finally come to a decision after seeing a 10cent motor at Syncro Solstice. Sure it's a long wait but totally worth it in the long run. Plus, I would rather buy an engine from a builder that is booked a few months out from one add on the Samba vs. a builder that has a web site and a fairly quick turn around. But that's just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Matt
_________________
87 Syncro w/EJ22
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zeitgeist 13
Samba Member


Joined: March 05, 2009
Posts: 9857
Location: Port Manteau
Zeitgeist 13 is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WBX porn thread. The counterweighted crank gives me the shivers
_________________
Casey--
Volkswagens powered by Volkswagen

Oly Bulli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
insyncro
Banned


Joined: March 07, 2002
Posts: 15087
Location: New York
insyncro is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't know Chris had a 2.4 in the works.
I would surely back that product when ready.
I will rephrase my earlier statement with:

I feel a 2.2 is best for most Vanagon owners, going larger will cost more to build and maintain plus premium fuel should be used.

I would not consider a 2.5 any longer.

Once my current Vanistan 2.2 is running I will certainly post my impressions of the power and driveability over a stock 2.1.
Other add on work has been added to the build so it will be about a week before the motor is reinstalled.

dylan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
silversync
Samba Member


Joined: September 01, 2005
Posts: 157
Location: San Pasqual Valley, CA
silversync is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tencentlife wrote:
one, the notion that 600cc is the maximum size for a cylinder? Where does that come from?


Yes, the Porsche 944 S2 and the 968 have 3.0L inline 4 cylinder engines, or 750cc per cylinder. But they use balance shafts to counter the vibrations from such large cylinders, and they rob about 5 hp. These are very smooth and reliable engines. I wonder what kind of vibrations would exist in a boxer configuration.

Roland
_________________
Roland: '89 Syncro, '02 911 C4S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Vanagon All times are Mountain Standard Time/Pacific Daylight Savings Time
Page: 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

About | Help! | Advertise | Donate | Premium Membership | Privacy/Terms of Use | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 1996-2020, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB