Subaru, really the answer?

A.Muppet wrote: Arn't audi 5 pots really crappy on fuel tho?  In the for sale forum on here some1 was selling a 2.3 5 pot quattro coz it was expensive to run.  Sticking that engine into something brick shaped would surely give even crappier mpg?  One of the reasons i like the idea of subaru conv is the reported 35mpg... unless people have been lying to me!!!!  What mpg would you expect from a 5 pot conv?

My SA 2.5i 5 cylinder Caravelle does approx 30mpg and just think if i had it LPG'd...that would be 136bhp,105mph and equivalent to approx 60mpg....so not that crappy.

tw3nty f1ve mpg - bliddy word filter

I maybe a little late in commenting on this thread but, if the Subaru Conversion wasn't so reliable, cheap and engines being so redly available for affordable money than our friends over the pond would not have adopted this conversion as the conversion of choice.
100's of conversions have been completed over there with all Subaru engine variants and I have spoken to many people on the phone in the states regarding the conversion.
The forum http//www.subaruvanagon.com bears testament to the reliability and cost effectiveness  of the conversion.
I would never have possibly looked at this conversion if the original 2.1 WBX was cheap to replace and guaranteed an :

• Increase in engine power
• Increased mileage per gallon
• Extremely smooth running
• Cheap to replace
• Cruise @ 80mph all day and all night
• Easy to service
• Removed 90% of water pipe work and joints from the engine bay
• Lasts sooooo long

Subaru are total committed to the FLAT FOUR configuration of engine so you will never be short of a replacement engine.
My answer to this whole thread is.
BUY A RUNNING CAR THAT YOU CAN SEE AND DRIVE.
FOR £1000 YOU CAN BUY A LOW MILEAGE CAR  e.g 2.5 16V OUTBACK.
GET A GARAGE TO REMOVE THE ENGINE AND LOOM.
GET RICHARD JONES TO CONVERT THE 2.5 LOOM AND TEST
THEN SWAP.
FOR AN APPROX COST OF £2000 YOU WILL NEVER LOOK BACK. 

Of course the 2.1 WBX is the ethical path but if you do go that route then get an original brand new VW plastic wrapped unit direct from VW.

Graph courtesy of www.subaruvanagon.com

if the Subaru Conversion wasn't so reliable, cheap and engines being so redly available for affordable money than our friends over the pond would not have adopted this conversion as the conversion of choice.

Hasn't this got more to do with their wasserboxer cylinder heads dissolving, which doesn't seem to be an issue in the UK. Fuel problems?

Cheap to replace Cruise @ 80mph all day and all night Easy to service

My DJ does that, (Admitedly Shortened List) + I can check and fill the oil without removing the hatch. Why is the subaru cheap to replace, they cost the same as a WBX secondhand don't they?

Of course the 2.1 WBX is the ethical path but if you do go that route then get an original brand new VW plastic wrapped unit direct from VW.

Not sure what ethics have got to do with it, but I don't think these 2.1's are available from VW anymore, but could be mis-informed. Why are all rebuilds so bad?

Oops came across a bit grumpy that, sorry!

Nah, I meant the wbx had head problems Stateside - kept dissolving or sommat

Why's it the original German design? Cos it's a flat four?

You can still get new engines from VW about £1,300 +VAT.

Ghia wrote: I'd love to install a 1.8T 20V engine in a syncro as the power band is exactly where you want, for example the 1996 Audi A4 150bhp has max torque 155 ftlbs from 1750-4600rpm! Not a buzz box at all. This car also is throttle cable operated and doesn't have an immobiliser unlike post 1997 cars. It's probably the only 1.8T 20V engine which would fit due to the later engine blocks having a different design which incorporates the waterpump internally. It should be a quiet engine, powerful and reliable with diagnostics which most vw/audi garages can now plug into. Obviously the Diesel setup would be needed but there would be some cost with the chargecooler/piping but the gearing would probably cope albeit from a TD or 2.1 Petrol. Whether it would fit under the standard engine lid or not remains to be seen. MG

 

my question and yours have been answered coz it's been done already http://www.stephansautohaus.com/vanagon-division/  found this on 'beetsport' member profile after seeing his syncro in bus park and noticing a 1.8t badge on the back.

looks good to me

Buttercup wrote: What about those run an Air Cooled motor and don't want radiator grills in the front of the truck? If the Scoob was air-cooled i'd have one already!

A while back there was a split with a subaru engine in it. He'd put the a couple of radiators between the chassis rails and that apparebtly worked fine.

Plu you can always put a faux spare wheel on the front to hide the grille like those horrific Brazilian bays that Danbury do.

Yes that's right all figures quoted are cat based and there fuel is of a poorer octane.
Of course this is great because I do not need the Cat so in the bin that went, and fitted a high flow exhaust system and of course the higher octane fuel.
So if the graph was drawn using UK based figures the power from the Subaru motor would be even better.
Oh and the 2.1 would be on the 112hp.