dont bother with suburu or whatever

Post by **Ye Olde Syncrospares** » 15 Jan 2007, 11:35

just bought in a za 2.5 5 pot kombi,fantastic motor,makes a great noise ,goes like the clappers,good on fuel,and its all vw,something to consider when thinking about engine changes,cj.

Post by **Simon Baxter** » 15 Jan 2007, 20:29

EJ22 is a lot of dicking about for 24 bhp!
Im sure 24bhp can be gained from a 2.1 for a lot less money and be more reliable, easier, cheaper and it's meant to be there!

SA vans go well, sound nice, just abit thin on the ground.

Post by **jamesc76** » 16 Jan 2007, 18:03

i went subaru not cos of the name but it coast me a damd sight les than a recon 1.9 wasserboxer and came with bags more power as standered no messing about engine side ok its hard on the electrical side but im proud of it!!!!

Post by **klatuu** » 17 Jan 2007, 10:18

Likewise, went subaru, coz there was one handy. and the conversion cost less than a wbx engine, electrics wasn't too difficult, took a bit of time, but I now understand efi better.

More power, smoother running, choice of easy to find cheap engines, and dare I say better economy.

Post by **HarryMann** » 17 Jan 2007, 10:52

Think its a bit more than just the difference in power

Just look at the torque curves for instance, think EJ22 is producing as much torque at 1500 as 2.1 is 3000, and then the real difference is spreading those gears out as it keeps going up to 6500 at least without getting asthmatic..

Its not cheap, agreed, but seeing RJES 2.5 in his, looked like it was made to be there, getting rid of that dreadful hornet's nest of wires and pipes alone has got to be worth something roll:

Fuel conmsumption is generally reported as better, obviously not if one stamps on the pedal too much though, but 25 rather than 20 mpg should be more easily attainable

I can see though that the Audi is nice engine well suited to the 2 ton + Buses and campers, but you've got to admit that replacing a flat-four with a flat-four has a certyain appeal

:

Post by **billy739** » 17 Jan 2007, 11:37

pugeot td cheaper than a scooby,super relable and cheap to run
and it likes cooking oil!
no problem with the speed limit either and can happily tow large trailors(a framed t25)

Post by **wasserleaker** » 26 Jan 2007, 20:41

I'm sure this will provoke outrage from suby lovers, but a mate of mine who rebuilds engines of all types for a living has had 2 subaru flat 4's in recently with shagged cranks/bottom ends and reckons this is a fairly common complaint with them, having seen one in bits, the crank looks incredibly spindly, v similar to a m/cycle crank and it make me wonder about the longevity of such an engine when it's shoving a bus around, both engines were considered not worth rebuilding in cost terms extortionate jap parts prices] and both owners decided to gamble on a S/H engine. that said, these 2 examples may have had multiple typical leadfoot 30something di**head owners! [is there any other kind of subaru owner? ? ? ]

Post by **poshbuggers** » 26 Jan 2007, 22:24

I have a friend who until recently (he has just retired) for a major engine tuner. He works on everything from american V8's to the great 911 flat six.

He reckons Scooby engines are 'made of chocolate' because they just melt under pressure and he hates having to tell his customers their engines are toast all the time.

His advice was to get a 993 engine or do an Audi conversion. I didn't fancy the massive expense and worry potential of the former on a daily driver so I am going (slowly) with the Audi 5 pot option.

It may not be a flat 4, but as VW used it themselves in the last (best?) SA vans its got to be one of the more appropriate options.

Post by **andysimpson** » 26 Jan 2007, 22:24

wasserleaker wrote:I'm sure this will provoke outrage from suby lovers, but a mate of mine who rebuilds engines of all types for a living has had 2 subaru flat 4's in recently with shagged cranks/bottom ends and reckons this is a fairly common complaint with them, having seen one in bits, the crank looks incredibly spindly, v similar to a m/cycle crank and it make me wonder about the longevity of such an engine when it's shoving a bus around, both engines were considered not worth rebuilding in cost terms extortionate jap parts prices] and both owners decided to gamble on a S/H engine. that said, these 2 examples may have had multiple typical leadfoot 30something di**head owners! [is there any other kind of subaru owner? ? ? ]

They do have a really bad reputation for crank problems, everyone i know with one is not happy about its reliability and the repair bills. Nasty cars.

Post by **HarryMann** » 26 Jan 2007, 23:18

All this is probably true - for very high specific output turbo Scooby engines under abusive conditions - but nobody is fitting those to T25s.

90% or more are the EJ22, a conservatively rated 2.2 litre NA engine that just spins a bit faster than the WBX, has better breathing, a lot more thought put into it and was designed 10 years later with electronics that work much better and has an integrated rather than a bolt on cooling system...

The 2.2s and 2.5s are used in ultrlight aircraft in the US, with a few basic mods, none of which involve re-cranking them, and they're officially cleared for aviation use (non turbo) in this category..

That to me makes me think they aren't a total bag of "pooh"

Post by **Simon Baxter** » 26 Jan 2007, 23:22

I know of one with a rattling bottom end....

Poor fella just bought it as a conversion done by someone else, he's been lumbered with someone elses expensive problem.

I really don't think that a Subaru conversion is all it's cracked up to be, but thats what you get for buying engines from scrap cars and fitting them to old vans.

Like I said up there, there is easier, cheaper ways to the extra few ponies (and torque) than another old engine to go in another old van.

Post by **andysimpson** » 27 Jan 2007, 20:37

HarryMann wrote:
The 2.2s and 2.5s are used in ultrlight aircraft in the US, with a few basic mods, none of which involve re-cranking them, and they're officially cleared for aviation use (non turbo) in this category..

That to me makes me think they aren't a total bag of "pooh"

VW type 1 engines have been used in aircraft and they are defo a bag of pooh (there always breaking).

Post by **HarryMann** » 27 Jan 2007, 21:33

VW type 1 engines have been used in aircraft and they are defo a bag of pooh (there always breaking).

I can agree with that...

Much modified though?
whereas the Subies are mainly modified in the inlet, injection and cooling side of things I believe.

The biggest weakness of the NA engines is supposed to be vapour bubbles in the cylinder heads, they're a bit sensitive to that = very sensitive. Bleed well or increase the header tank head if possible. They can develop low oil pressue, but don't think it genetic like in some other engines

Post by **andysimpson** » 27 Jan 2007, 22:43

The air problem is probably made worse by people using cheap coolant with a low boiling point.

Post by **HarryMann** » 28 Jan 2007, 12:16

Some in the States use a cooling system additive that is supposed to increase 'wetting' of the coolant surfaces, helping to avoid micro-bubbles and aiding overall heat-transfer.
It slightly lower the boiling point but not enough to cause a problem I think I've read.

Do you know of a UK brand of such a thing?

What is a really good brand of anti-freeze (VW) or the ones to avoid?