Club 80-90 Forums

itchyfeet wrote: I think thats becuse the 2e3 won't give the extra air/ fuel you need.

You could well be right. Should have some numbers to go on once it's been on the rolling road. In the meantime, are there any figures for a DG with injection? I don't believe VW ever made such a combination, but I'm sure someone must have attempted a retrofit.

CJH wrote:I don't believe VW ever made such a combination...

My mistake. From wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:1.9 L (1,913 cc) (83 bhp) (Serial # DH) water-cooled (or "Wasserboxer") engine used for the 1983½ to 1985 models, which used a fuel injection system known as "Digijet" (Digital Jet-tronic)

That's versus 76 bhp for the 2E3. With the same 2E3 I guess the difference (76 bhp to 83 bhp) ought to be bigger on the 2.1 (carb versus injection) if the carb is restricting the airflow. Who knows how much of an effect the slightly bigger carb will have.

CJH wrote: My mistake. From wikipedia:

DH was the yank engine, GW was the European 1.9 injection engine with some extra ponies.

bigherb wrote:

CJH wrote: My mistake. From wikipedia:

DH was the yank engine, GW was the European 1.9 injection engine with some extra ponies.

Yeah, I had the DH which was also for the Australian market. Digijet fi system was problem free for me, just the usual wboxer weepy heads and oil burning made me do the switch.

bigherb wrote: DH was the yank engine, GW was the European 1.9 injection engine with some extra ponies.

So it was - missed that on the page I linked to! 13 bhp more than the DG, from what was probably the same hardware. Doesn't look good for the carburettor.

GW 1.9 ( 8.6:1 ) digijet
90BHP
147Nm 2800rpm
98 RON

DG 1.9 ( 8.6:1) 2e3
78BHP
141Nm 2600rpm
91 RON


so some of this will be injecion and some the petrol, it does not mean GW was tuned for power, it could have been tuned for emissions.

Surely the carb inlet volume has little effect on the overall power difference?
As I see it the DJ sucks slightly longer and squeezes harder with a higher octane fuel for the power
The bore is still the same.
To me that's a stroker.
Strokers deliver at lower rpm, my motorcycling days saw this engine battle played out over the years... Injected engines with engine management reduced all thst to the history books.

I think the carburettor just delivers the power elsewhere on the torque curve, and is not as refined as the injected version..
My brother in law has a GW engined westy.
It can hold its own against my wheezy low compression 2.1 higher up in the rev range
However off the blocks my van, although heavier, is never wanting.

One of these days somebody will test a 2.1 on a carb using a dynomometer.
I have seen a 2.1 on twin drla Dells dyno'd, that wasn't as big surprise that I thought it would be.

One of these days somebody will test a 2.1 on a carb using a dynomometer.
I have seen a 2.1 on twin drla Dells dyno'd, that wasn't as big surprise that I thought it would be.

yes Chris is planning it soon as there is a slot available.

I see the arguments both ways but I'm thinking performance tuning is all about getting more flow through your engine, bigger engines always have bigger carbs or multiple carbs, turbo just gets more air/fuel through the same engine.
Any bottle neck must be affecting flow.
you can't really compare different vans, some will be in much better condition than others and different weights which must affect power.

kevtherev wrote:Surely the carb inlet volume has little effect on the overall power difference?

I've wrestled with the same argument myself. The explanation that convinced me it must make a difference is to think of what the throttle does. On the Pierburg 2E3 at least, all it does is open the flap that restricts the airflow, effectively increasing the cross-sectional area. So the bigger inlet could be thought of simply as a wider throttle.

kevtherev wrote: One of these days somebody will test a 2.1 on a carb using a dynomometer.

That reminds me - I must chase him again. The measurements I've got already are for a 1.9DG on a stock DG carb and a stock LT carb. If all goes to plan I should be able to add measurements for a 2.1DJ on a stock DG carb and a stock LT carb, as well as a re-jetted DG carb and a re-jetted LT carb.

800 miles on the engine now, and it's running very nicely. Did a 150 mile round trip on the motorway yesterday and it didn't miss a beat. I drove it harder - indicated 75mph most of the time, and accelerating hard up the hills to see what it could do (and it never ran out of puff) - and it returned an extra 1mpg. I'm starting to like this engine . In fact it had me the moment it started on the first turn of the key after the rebuild.

Most significantly the tappets are fine. It's rarely stood for more than a day in the last couple of weeks, but there don't seem to be any signs of them draining down now. I think there were initially - one time I started it up after standing overnight and it took 15 minutes of driving at speed to clear it - but for whatever reason that's not happened since. Maybe it's the effect of having cooler oil the whole time - it's rarely over 80º when I turn the engine off. There is a little more valve train noise when the engine's cold, but it's not what I associate with drained tappets, and I think my DG was always the same.

Sounds like a win! Well done

itchyfeet wrote:

One of these days somebody will test a 2.1 on a carb using a dynomometer.
I have seen a 2.1 on twin drla Dells dyno'd, that wasn't as big surprise that I thought it would be.

yes Chris is planning it soon as there is a slot available.

I see the arguments both ways but I'm thinking performance tuning is all about getting more flow through your engine, bigger engines always have bigger carbs or multiple carbs, turbo just gets more air/fuel through the same engine.
Any bottle neck must be affecting flow.
you can't really compare different vans, some will be in much better condition than others and different weights which must affect power.

I can understand your point at full power.
With both venturi fully open the restriction may well indeed have a detrimental effect on the bhp produced
But strokers don't work like that.
They spend all their time at midrange or lower.
The vacuum throttle comes on tap really early on the rev range and it could be that this is better than injected volumes at lower throttle settings
Pure conjecture I know but plausable

Surely full power is what we are talking about, sure you don't use it very often but its nice to have when you need it.

Hi

I didn't bother reading pages 2-28 but thought I'd quip in with the information that I run a 2.1dj using a standard pierburg carb and it goes like stink.

The swap was done by Andrew Simmonds up at camper shack and he did a few extra tweaks that are worth mentioning:

1.The front to back coolant pipes are different.
2.It's worth sourcing a late coolant pipe system and modding that.
3. Rewire everything
4. Rebuild your carb
5. Put a stainless exhaust on

I still have some random cutting out issues, as I'm coming to a stop it simply dies. And sometimes it just clicks and won't start, as if it has vanagon syndrome but it can't cos there is no injection nonsense! But as I say, it goes like a sports car when it's running!

My 2.1 injection goes like stink.And has never randomly cut out.

there is no injection nonsense!