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
Love My Westy
Samba Member


Joined: August 08, 2007
Posts: 1528

Love My Westy is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi wrote:
STOP RUNNING REGULAR Confused It says on your Vanagon to only use 91OCT The same people on this forum that are going to run regular fuel in the WBX are going to be the same people who later say that the WBX is a piece of crap so they are going Subaru Mad I suggest people need to stop thinking they know better and understand that the engineers in Germany design things to run on good quality fuel. 91 Oct is the lowest grade they make. In the US is it our high end fuel. Embarassed To the person who is running regular in a new GoWesty 2.5 Shocked Stupid move. You just voided your warranty now that you have paraded your mistake on the forums Rolling Eyes
On page 56 of my 1986 owners manual there is an explanation under the heading FUEL SUPPLY and Octane Rating: "The 91 RON octane rating which you will find on the inside of the fuel tank flap is based on the research method. The CLC octane rating usually displayed on U.S. gasoline pumps is calculated as follows: Research octane number plus motor octane number divided by 2. Regular fuels have an octane rating ranging from 91 to 95 RON (Research Octane Number) or 87 CLC (U.S. Cost of Living Council Octane rating)." Chris is right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Steve Arndt
Samba Member


Joined: August 01, 2005
Posts: 1663
Location: Boise, Idaho
Steve Arndt is online now 

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bump.

I'm loving my 2.3 liter Rocky Jennings engine!
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=470798

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
D Clymer
Samba Member


Joined: December 22, 2005
Posts: 2881
Location: Issaquah, WA
D Clymer is offline 

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vango Conversions wrote:
I don't think displacement has much to do with an engine needing a balance shaft, it'ts the layout. Most inline fours need them even the 600cc total displacement motorcycle engines, in fact they probably need them much more than a 3000cc car engine, the bikes rev up to 15,000+ rpm.


If we're talking inline fours, 2.0 liters is the point that most modern automotive engines become fitted with balance shafts. It simply comes down to the magnification of the second order forces that are present in the inline four configuration. Above 2.0 liters the pistons get large and heavy, and/ or the stroke gets significantly longer. Both of these characteristics amplify the magnitude of internal vibration.

I wasn't aware that 600cc motorcycle inline fours had them, but I guess I'm not surprised given their extremely high redlines.

David
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Vango Conversions
Samba Member


Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 1054
Location: Seattle, WA
Vango Conversions is offline 

PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think displacement has much to do with an engine needing a balance shaft, it'ts the layout. Most inline fours need them even the 600cc total displacement motorcycle engines, in fact they probably need them much more than a 3000cc car engine, the bikes rev up to 15,000+ rpm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
D Clymer
Samba Member


Joined: December 22, 2005
Posts: 2881
Location: Issaquah, WA
D Clymer is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Horizontally opposed fours, though still not perfectly balanced, are balanced well enough that they don't need balance shafts at 2.5 liters. To be refined, an inline four typically needs to be balance shafted when larger than 2.0 liters. There are limits to what a balance shaft can do. A Mitsubishi 2.6, or for that matter a Porsche 944 S2 with the 3.0 inline 4 are certainly not what I would call silky smooth.

FWIW, the only engine configurations that are truly 100 percent balanced are the inline 6, the H6, and the 60 degree V12. V8s with 90 degree crank throws come pretty close as do some V6s and H4s, but they are not perfect.

D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Zeitgeist 13
Samba Member


Joined: March 05, 2009
Posts: 10107
Location: Port Manteau
Zeitgeist 13 is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems like Porsche should've just borrowed Audi's inline five blocks and then bored those out to achieve the desired effect. Way less complicated and those fivers are bulletproof. My DD is a 2.5L fiver and I absolutely love the smoothness and awesome sound.
_________________
Casey--
Volkswagens powered by Volkswagen
'89 Bluestar TDI
'01 Weekender VR6
Oly Bulli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
psych-illogical
Samba Member


Joined: October 14, 2004
Posts: 1181
Location: AZ
psych-illogical is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tencentlife wrote:
Um, this is old hat, but you might look up the differences between the octane ratings systems used in Europe vs. USA (RON vs. (RON+MON)/2, aka CLC or AKI ratings). In a nutshell, 91RON used in Europe is about equal to a US 87 AKI, also known around here as "regular unleaded".


You beat me to it tencent. Different rating system.

I was always under the understanding that octane requirements were primarily a function of compression ratio.
_________________
83 1/2 Westy waterboxer
'57 Beetle-sold Sad
Coupla '81 BMW motorcycles (R80G/S; R100RS)
'96 BMW R1100GS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
mwsnow
Samba Member


Joined: November 13, 2007
Posts: 266
Location: Alton, NH
mwsnow is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tencentlife wrote:
Quote:
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.


My understanding is they use balance shafts because inline 4's need balance shafts, I don't think it has to do with the piston size. There are established harmonic patterns that arise in that configuration regardless of displacement, so you see most I4's have a balance shaft to counteract the inherent imbalance of that config. H-4's, straight 6's, and 3 or 4 other config's I can't think of at the moment are inherently balanced.

Somewhere in the attic I have a "Porsche Buyer's Guide," that talks about the process that brought balance shafts to the 944 engines. According to the book, at around 2.4 liters, the harmonics present in all inline fours are significant enough to require counter-rotating balance shafts for high-RPM use. Porsche messed with it for a while, then licensed Mitsubishi's patented system for their engines. 90-degree V8s are also inherently balanced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
tencentlife
Samba Member


Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: Abiquiu, NM, USA
tencentlife is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It says on your Vanagon to only use 91OCT


Um, this is old hat, but you might look up the differences between the octane ratings systems used in Europe vs. USA (RON vs. (RON+MON)/2, aka CLC or AKI ratings). In a nutshell, 91RON used in Europe is about equal to a US 87 AKI, also known around here as "regular unleaded".


Quote:
I suggest people need to stop thinking they know better and understand that the engineers in Germany design things to run on good quality fuel.


The exalted German engineers* designed things to run on the fuel that is available to public highway drivers, the quality of which doesn't vary substantively between the major markets. The wbx is not only not required to use high octane fuel, it is especially tolerant of low octane fuels, by design.

I know it feels good to believe we're driving the thoroughbred horse of vans, but the reality is a bit more parochial, it's just a delivery van.

*(many of whom were not German, multinationals like VW have been global polyglot institutions for decades now; Ford for instance has for years been as German a company as it is American, but they also employ many Italians, Japanese, Indians, Armenians, etc....um, you know, people? I promise you that portions of the design work on any VW car of the last 30 years or longer were carried out in VW's operations in many countries besides Germany, where there were few if any actual Germans to be found. Put another way, nations have nationalities; business shitcanned that notion a long long time ago because it's a severe impediment to making money)
_________________
See innovative Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
I don't use The Samba Private Messaging. Please use the contact link at www.intrepidoverland.com

"Official" IntrepidOverland thread for news and discussion:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...mp;start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
tencentlife
Samba Member


Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 9967
Location: Abiquiu, NM, USA
tencentlife is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


My understanding is they use balance shafts because inline 4's need balance shafts, I don't think it has to do with the piston size. There are established harmonic patterns that arise in that configuration regardless of displacement, so you see most I4's have a balance shaft to counteract the inherent imbalance of that config. H-4's, straight 6's, and 3 or 4 other config's I can't think of at the moment are inherently balanced.
_________________
See innovative Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
I don't use The Samba Private Messaging. Please use the contact link at www.intrepidoverland.com

"Official" IntrepidOverland thread for news and discussion:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...mp;start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Jedi
Samba Member


Joined: October 23, 2007
Posts: 731
Location: Cool California
Jedi is offline 

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

STOP RUNNING REGULAR Confused It says on your Vanagon to only use 91OCT The same people on this forum that are going to run regular fuel in the WBX are going to be the same people who later say that the WBX is a piece of crap so they are going Subaru Mad I suggest people need to stop thinking they know better and understand that the engineers in Germany design things to run on good quality fuel. 91 Oct is the lowest grade they make. In the US is it our high end fuel. Embarassed To the person who is running regular in a new GoWesty 2.5 Shocked Stupid move. You just voided your warranty now that you have paraded your mistake on the forums Rolling Eyes
_________________
1961 Westfalia SO34 T/BW
1961 Westfalia SO34 SWR
1964 Westfalia SO33 pearl white
1965 Westfalia SO42 Velvet green
1986 Syncro Wolfram grey with black int GL
1986 Syncro Doka
1987 Syncro Sevana beige Adventurewagen
1987 syncro Sevana beige GL
1973 Pumpkin orange Thing
2 1963 Rag top bug's
1965 Manx
1970 Single cab
1971 combi
1990 Vanagon GL
2007 Audi A4 3.2L quattro
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
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
Zeitgeist 13
Samba Member


Joined: March 05, 2009
Posts: 10107
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
'89 Bluestar TDI
'01 Weekender VR6
Oly Bulli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 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
tencentlife
Samba Member


Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 9967
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.
_________________
See innovative Vanagon accessories at the Vanistan shop:
https://intrepidoverland.com/vanistan/
I don't use The Samba Private Messaging. Please use the contact link at www.intrepidoverland.com

"Official" IntrepidOverland thread for news and discussion:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...mp;start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 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
gl98115
Samba Member


Joined: April 22, 2011
Posts: 263
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
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
SCM
Samba Member


Joined: January 26, 2011
Posts: 2442
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 (GTA "Turbo" Rebuild w/Peloquin) and 2.3L GoWesty Engine
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