| Author |
Message |
geodude
Samba Member
Joined: May 24, 2012
Posts: 372
Location: Sacramento
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| tjet wrote: |
What real advantage does an inline engine have over a horizontally opposed engine? |
Advantages
1 head not 2
1 exhaust manifold connection not 2
1 intake connection not 2
1 fuel rail (for typical multi point injection) not 2
One piece block not split.
The VW inlines typically have / had higher compression ratios meaning higher HP for the displacement
Disadvantages
Not as naturally balanced as the horizontally opposed 4
Have to lay the engine over to fit in the low deck height of the vans or end up with a low stroke length engine to fit vertically.
_________________
1988 GL Camper
1991 Multivan — the basket case |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kennyw
Samba Member
Joined: September 03, 2012
Posts: 58
Location: Salt Lake City
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone knows the VW WBX is a ticking time bomb that when it goes off will rip a hole in space and time, thus altering the very fabric of the known universe. So, swap in the latest and greatest Subaru engine before yours goes off and we have another mass extinction... We all know that the Dinosaurs went extinct because of the a negligent Vanagon owner...
_________________
'15 Tiguan - Victor
'88 Westy - Maggy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeitgeist 13
Samba Member
Joined: March 05, 2009
Posts: 12115
Location: Port Manteau
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tjet wrote: |
What real advantage does an inline engine have over a horizontally opposed engine? |
In a word; simplicity. Simplicity in the intake/exhaust manifold layouts. Simplicity in the exhaust piping post manifold. The simplicity of design becomes quite self evident during teardown and build up of these engines, vs split head versions like vee and flat designs. There are tons of practical ease of maintenance advantages, as well. For the record, I daily drive both vee and flat engines, but I loathe having to service either of them. Thankfully that's rarely required
_________________
Casey--
'89 Bluestar ALH w/12mm Waldo pump, PP764 and GT2052
'01 Weekender --> full camper
y u rune klassik? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PDXWesty wrote: |
Those of us who work in the engineering world know this: no matter what type of engineering you do, every decision is a compromise between ideal design and cost. Every engineer wants to design something flawless and bullet proof, but the cost analysis doesn't always support the direction the engineers want to go. It happens all the time, everywhere.
... |
I know an exception: Porsche and the nephew who nearly bankrupted the company by pursuing racing victory and excellence at any cost. He later was forced to go elsewhere and wound up running VWAG, then destroyed the King of Wienie's (a manufacturing engineer - i.e. "cost-cutter") when the latter tried to have Porsche take over VW.
Long live the Flat Six!
Last edited by Merian on Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildthings wrote: |
[1] Since two of the WBXers problems are the head gasket design and the rod bolts, I don't think the executives came down and told the engineers to design a part that would shorten the life of an otherwise good engine. Though maybe they didn't allow them to do enough testing or something. One of the problems with VW for decades has been that they will forego reengineering a part once it is in production even if it is giving gobs of problems, think the 2.1 rod bolt. They surely knew by the '88 model year that these bolts were letting go yet they continued to use them,
[2] they also never fixed the Vanagon syndrome, something multiple owners/mechanics independently figured out how to do and do cheaply. Heck there are some fixes shown in my Bentley that predate the production of my Multi. |
[1] xlnt points
[2] didn't VW make up a special elec. harness to fix that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamzcab86
Samba Moderator
Joined: July 26, 2008
Posts: 7923
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Terry Kay wrote: |
<<<What real advantage does an inline engine have over a horizontally opposed engine?>>>
Cubes, stroke, HP, & 2 more cylinders, other than that, not much. |
Tell that to the 3.6L 911 GT2 RS:
612hp 
_________________
~Kamz 
1986 Cabriolet: www.Cabby-Info.com
 1990 Vanagon Westfalia: Old Blue's Blog
2016 Golf GTI S
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - 孔子 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j_dirge
Samba Member
Joined: August 08, 2007
Posts: 4641
Location: Twain Harte, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamzcab86 wrote: |
612hp |
Don't poke the badger...
_________________
-89 GL Westy, SVX.. finally.
-57 pan f/g buggy with a 67 pancake Type 3 "S"
"Jimi Hendrix owned one. Richard Nixon did not"
-Grand Tour, Season 1, episodes 4 and 5
| danfromsyr wrote: |
those are straight line runs with light weight race cars for only 1/4mile at a time..
not pushing a loaded brick up a mountain pass with a family of 4+ inside expecting to have an event free vacation..
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazyvwvanman
Samba Member
Joined: January 28, 2008
Posts: 9936
Location: Orbiting San Diego
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention VW themselves builds some smaller 3 cyl inline car engines, gas and diesels.
Inlines can be simpler and cheaper to build, all else equal. Cost is king in most volume production environments.
Mark
| kamzcab86 wrote: |
| Terry Kay wrote: |
<<<What real advantage does an inline engine have over a horizontally opposed engine?>>>
Cubes, stroke, HP, & 2 more cylinders, other than that, not much. |
Tell that to the 3.6L 911 GT2 RS:
612hp |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Kay
Banned
Joined: June 22, 2003
Posts: 13331
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildthings wrote: |
| The question is "Why did they stick with it and not move on to something better as they did in South Africa?" |
I've always wondered what kind of driving the folks did in SA for them to ditch the flat four?
And VW of SA did all of this.
Interesting.
Somebody mentioned industrial use.
I never have seen or heard of any outfit using the wasserleaker for a powerplant.
Not en-mass anyway.
There was a farm sprayer company "Spray Coupe" that used a Golf gas engine.
A good friend of mine had one.
With 120 ft. of booms, 800 gallons of herbicides, plus the weight if the chassis, this poor thing screamed day in and day out for 15 years--5000 rpm.
He'd stuff it on the governor, and go this way, and that way in the fields every spring & fall---all 4500 acres.
It's demise was not to a blown engine, the harmonic balancer had 6 belt pulleys on it, and it broke the end of the crank--too much belt in one place.
Bad design, not the fault of the engine.
Amazing vehicle.
Great engine.
VWOA screwed up by not using it.
_________________
T.K.
Last edited by Terry Kay on Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lower Cg for opposed motors has not been mentioned yet... tho it is not such a huge difference as many suppose, and and not a biggie on the Vanergun
an opposed motor also has less structural integrity than say a V design |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abelabelabel
Samba Member
Joined: November 17, 2014
Posts: 336
Location: Santa Ana, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kennyw wrote: |
| Everyone knows the VW WBX is a ticking time bomb that when it goes off will rip a hole in space and time, thus altering the very fabric of the known universe. So, swap in the latest and greatest Subaru engine before yours goes off and we have another mass extinction... We all know that the Dinosaurs went extinct because of the a negligent Vanagon owner... |
Got a great visual from this post. Giant space Vanagon flaming towards the prehistoric surface. All because of neglected space fuel lines. Live and learn. If only they were on the space samba we might all be driving around in cars with steering wheels engineered for our tiny T-Rex arms.
_________________
1991 Vanagon GL / Carat Interior / Auto - White "Daily"
1990 Vanagon Carat / manual / Cherry Red "Bella Rouge" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tjet 
Samba Member
Joined: June 10, 2014
Posts: 3533
Location: CA & NM
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geodude wrote: |
| tjet wrote: |
What real advantage does an inline engine have over a horizontally opposed engine? |
Advantages
1 head not 2
1 exhaust manifold connection not 2
1 intake connection not 2
1 fuel rail (for typical multi point injection) not 2
One piece block not split.
The VW inlines typically have / had higher compression ratios meaning higher HP for the displacement
...... |
That sounds more like differences than "real" advantage.
I mean, I've never looked at any of the air or water cooled flat vw engines & wished it only had 1 head  ....
As far as structural integrity, is a case half stronger or weaker than a bearing cap?
Doesn't a flat engine produce more tq than an inline by design? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| no to most of your questions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j_dirge
Samba Member
Joined: August 08, 2007
Posts: 4641
Location: Twain Harte, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tjet wrote: |
I mean, I've never looked at any of the air or water cooled flat vw engines & wished it only had 1 head ....
|
If/when you ever undertake resealing the heads on a WBXer, you'll certainly wish for just one head... especially doing the job with engine, in.
_________________
-89 GL Westy, SVX.. finally.
-57 pan f/g buggy with a 67 pancake Type 3 "S"
"Jimi Hendrix owned one. Richard Nixon did not"
-Grand Tour, Season 1, episodes 4 and 5
| danfromsyr wrote: |
those are straight line runs with light weight race cars for only 1/4mile at a time..
not pushing a loaded brick up a mountain pass with a family of 4+ inside expecting to have an event free vacation..
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WestyBob
Samba Member
Joined: June 11, 2004
Posts: 2346
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Why did VW Engineer the WBX? |
|
|
| vegpedlr wrote: |
| But I still want to know why those Oetinnger bigger WBXers weren't pursued, especially here in the US. |
Used for what .. the vanagons ? It's because the vanagons were already on the way out and vw didn't want to pump any money into it for further research and refit. Some may disagree but that's what I learned.
| vegpedlr wrote: |
| Also, why not keep using the WBX after the bus design was retired. |
Because there was nothing to use it for. Other more modern engines were coming to the forefront. The 2.1L wbxr was the end of a long line of engine design variations rooted in the late 30's. It served it's purpose but was done, no longer needed. It could not keep up with the growing fuel efficiency, pollution and etc. regulations many countries were implementing -- especially in NA. It did not have the power newer engines were producing and people expected based on competition.
| vegpedlr wrote: |
| I was hoping this thread would devolve into another rant against the Vanagon and WBX, but a history lesson |
It's routine  Join in ... it don't cost nothing. We have gearheads, trolls, tailgunners, angels, partisans, psychos, educators, designers, etc ... we got it all. It's fun.
Seriously ... don't take the animosity too seriously.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There are some serious histories written on other makes, like Porsche. I'd expect such books exist for VW and the Vanagon also, but have not read them. (Sounds like a lot of others haven't either...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geodude
Samba Member
Joined: May 24, 2012
Posts: 372
Location: Sacramento
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tjet wrote: |
That sounds more like differences than "real" advantage.
I mean, I've never looked at any of the air or water cooled flat vw engines & wished it only had 1 head ....
As far as structural integrity, is a case half stronger or weaker than a bearing cap?
Doesn't a flat engine produce more tq than an inline by design? |
Only having to do one gasket for each of those items is a big deal to me. One water inlet to seal, one head gasket, one water outlet to seal. So many less places to leak. Simplicity is almost always a large advantage.
Flat engines don't magically produce more torque. For same stroke and displacement the two engines would produce essentially the same torque. Increase the stroke and you increase the torque at a given rpm.
The H-4 has good balance and is short but results in a lot of complexity and is very wide. Everything is a compromise and H-4's are a great layout for aircooled engines for various reasons. Once you go to watercooled its not as ideal a platform, unless you are trying to limit the vertical dimension of the package.
In 1970 whatever when the Vanagon was being defined they didn't have a large enough displacement inline engine for the vehicle. A 1.5 or 1.6 was just too small. Audi introduced the 2.1 I-5 around the same time the Vanagon was through its design and beginning production so was an unproven option and a long engine. I bet the decision to go with a flat 4 was made early in the design and that limited the eventual engine choice to re-engineer the existing aircooled engine to watercooled or radically change the van 3 years into production to fit an engine of a different size and configuration.
In hindsight jumping the displacement of the VW inline from 1.6 to 2.0 and using that would make sense, but VW didn't do that for their cars until a decade later. And in all reality to really compete in the US market they needed a V6 (I4's can't get much bigger than 2.5L without a lot of work) or a turbo I4. VW didn't have a turbo I4 until the 90's. Not to mention having to build a whole new transmission to handle that power.
_________________
1988 GL Camper
1991 Multivan — the basket case |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merian
Samba Member
Joined: January 04, 2014
Posts: 5212
Location: Orygun
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
another comment about inherent balance -- when the flat 4 was first designed, CAE did not exist
later, computational methods had developed greatly and cranks could be designed (and made) that gave better balance with less wt. and cost - this is when you see the rise of the horrid v-6 motor and oddball Audi 5 cylinder motors ("just 'cuz we can")
Last edited by Merian on Thu Sep 03, 2015 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeitgeist 13
Samba Member
Joined: March 05, 2009
Posts: 12115
Location: Port Manteau
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oddball fiver? Nearly every major manufacturer produces or has produced a five cylinder. An Audi five should've been the standard issue North American engine for these breadboxes, along with a reconfigured Audi transaxle
_________________
Casey--
'89 Bluestar ALH w/12mm Waldo pump, PP764 and GT2052
'01 Weekender --> full camper
y u rune klassik? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MsTaboo
Samba Member
Joined: June 02, 2006
Posts: 4097
Location: East Kootenay, British Columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To the OP and the original question. As others have said, VW did not have a strong inline engine they could put into the van, nor a stout transmission to back it up. Also the flat boxer engine works well keeping the center of weight low (good for a tall box). It was easier to wrap a water jacket around the fifty year old design than start fresh on a new boxer.
It really is too bad that the bean counters would not allow the engineers to develop an all new water cooled boxer, especially a six cylinder. The added power would have given the Vanagon an edge with the crap Detroit was putting out. (thats right Terry, crap. I bought a new 80's car from Detriot, crap!)
You have to remember that the writing was on the wall for the demise of the rear engine/forward control vehicle. D.O.T. and the other protectionist agencies in America were ruling out any forward control passenger vehicles, killing the competition from Germany. Vanagons were already fairly expensive due to better quality materials and shipping. Vw had to cut cost anywhere they could. At the same time they were developing their new front wheel drive/ front engine van to meet the new rules and the old bus became an orphan. It only lasted as long as it did because it took longer for VW to develop the Eurovan, and some of their fleet customers preferred the Vanagon.
VW could have continued to use the boxer in passenger vehicles like Subaru, but they were jumping on the front wheel drive bandwagon and boxers don't play well with front wheel drive. So the Vanagon was the boxers last platform.
When the Eurovan came out it had a Renault engine, not VW. (edit: Wrong! it was an Audi)((foot in mouth disease)) The main point is VW didn't have anything better to put in the vans. Big mistake, they should have spent the R&D. Especially considering the Syncro, it that had a better engine from the start, sales would have been stronger.
The other thing to remember is that VW was changing from the peoples car to being just like all the other dealer led car makers. The VW dealers hated that owners were able to work on their own cars and pestered VW to build more complicated vehicles that are harder for owners to service.
_________________
Currently:
'90 Syncro Westy 3 knob w/Zetec
The information age has morphed into the age of disinformation and willful ignorance. Agnotology!
Help the fight against Truth Decay.
Defend democracy, support Ukraine.
Last edited by MsTaboo on Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
