[wildenbeast]

I recently sold my Vanagon and just bought a Eurovan. I am wondering if anyone has rebuilt their manual 2.5 engine from a 93-95 Eurovan using upgraded parts? If so, what upgrades did you use and is there a "go-to" rebuilder for these engines? I would really like to find rebuild options similar to what Vanistan / Tencentlife offers for Vanagons, if possible. http://vanistan.com/ordering_engines.html

[lister]

I believe there was a thread on the old google eurovan group about a bloke who skimmed the head to get 9.5-1 compression, match ported the intake and exhaust, replaced the exhaust manifold with a free flowing item and got 145bhp out of it. I haven't been able to join the group. There has been a few old threads on vortex mentioning it. Maybe someone else has more info.

[Cole]

This would be a good place to post any links you can find. If we all consolidate the information then maybe we can come up with a good viable build plan for those engines.

I know of a few resources.

[wildenbeast]

On the Samba, another member noted that the Audi 20V 7A NA engine would be a good replacement for a 2.5 manual Eurovan.  However, I received this information from Eurospec when inquiring about that engine:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill

To convert to a 7A engine would be a complex project. All: ancillaries, intake, exhaust, wiring, ECU etc. would have to be changed.

You would be better off increasing the displacement of the same 2,460 cc engine type that you now have.

Options:
Big Bore engine. Increase bore from 81.00 mm to 83.00 mm = 2,583 cc
Big bore stroker engine. Increase bore from 81.00 mm to 83.00 mm.  Increase stroke from 95.5 mm to 100.0 mm = 2,705 cc.

The stroker engine would get you the biggest increase in torque which is what that vehicle needs.


--
Best regards,

Eurospec Sport
info@eurospecsport.com
www.eurospecsport.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Would anyone have concerns about going this route?  I want reliability over power, but a bit more power would be welcome!

[Cole]

I saw that. The 20v would be complex. The head is wider and thus the intake/exhaust would be a tighter fit.

I'm sure building a big bore stroker is the right way to go if not doing a turbo.

[lister]

Over on the vwt4forum there is a guy that has put a 20v turbo in his doka. He is currently in the middle of building a camper with an inline 20v turbo and full Audi 4wd

[Cole]

Over on the vwt4forum there is a guy that has put a 20v turbo in his doka. He is currently in the middle of building a camper with an inline 20v turbo and full Audi 4wd

Link?

I've seen the original swap, but an inline version would take a ton of floor/firewall fab. Might be easier in a right hand drive since you would have more footwell room to eat up.

When I measured the engine compartment to do an inline swap I concluded that the steering assembly would need totally changed and that you would totally loose the space where the gas pedal goes.

[lister]

Yep, new bulkhead and custom shock mounts converting to struts at the front, makes good reading and gives you ideas for daydreaming lol

http://www.vwt4forum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=309138

[Cole]

Cool! Thanks for the link!

[wildenbeast]

Here's some more info I have found out regarding a potential performance rebuild from Eurospec.  As I am not an expert on engine components, I had a good friend who is an expert call and talk to them about what they were proposing.  Below are his thoughts.

I can't imagine anyone really tunes a ECU from these engines? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 1993 Eurovan 2.5 inline-5 engine

Bill,

I chatted with Steve@overlandparts.com (he works at eurospecsport and is the one that was chatting with you via e-mail.

Pros:
- It sounds like they know what they are doing in regards to engine rebuilds with forged pistons.
- The motor will have 15-20% more torque than the stock 2.5L, which you already knew
- your AWD conversion sparked quite a bit of interest with Steve, so they may want you to bring the van to them for the motor work. They'll have more details as you near a decision on motors.

Con:
-The fuel system would need to be richened up a bit with the larger air volume moving through the motor, which is the same for our Subaru customers that go from a 2.0 to 2.2L. The issue here is Eurospec did not have a suggestion for a tuner. A built stroker motor (bigger displacement) without a tuner tends to be worse off than a stock displacement sized motor. Food for thought for when you continue further down this road.

Side note:
Steve briefly mentioned bumping the compressoin ratio by 0.5 or so. This increases the pressure inside the combustion area (top of piston to valves), thus allowing for a more dramatic explosion which creates more TQ.  There is a tipping point though, and I do not know what it is with this motor and our climate.  If the CR (compression ratio) is high with a low fuel grade (91) then engine knock may come into play. I see this when tuning built / stroked Subaru motors. When the CR goes up, the folks with 91 oct tend to require a bit of de-tuning in the ECU when compared to folks with 93 oct. This issue would be exaggerated with our higher elevation (5K vs eurospec at 300) and with higher loads (filled to the gills with gear). The best way to correct engine knock from the increased CR is through tuning. Unfortunately, Steve did not have a suggested tuner to use.

Tuner (someone with a means to connect with a computer to the car, that can then change the ECU versus trying to make changes to the motor itself):
It would be best to find a well experienced tuner, specific to Van motors and computers, before purchasing anything. As it stands, the 2.7L motor will have a lean issue and could use some ECU work in the Ignition table too.

Closing:
I would not hesitate to use this company to build a motor. Just do more research before pulling the trigger so you don't end up with a headache-mobile like the diesel one you had before.


Stephen Clark
IA Performance

[Cole]

I'm not a tuning expert by any means.

I don't totally understand the tuning issue here.

As long as the engine can physically get enough air in/out then the ECU would be able to adjust the mixture as long as the injectors could physically flow enough more.

An increase in displacement seems like it would only cause an issue if the intake system couldn't flow in enough air/fuel. Then it would only have to be scaled appropriately.

But from what you have posted, it seems like you are only moving from a 2.5 to a 2.7l? An 8% increase. I'd bet the stock computer has 8% headroom in it. Or you could simply run an 8% larger MAF and 8% larger injectors. (and a more free flowing exhaust)

[wildenbeast]

Hi Cole- I imagine the ECU can compensate some fueling, but the other issue is timing (since we do not know how much the ECU can self compensate).  Someone with tuning experience would hopefully be able to tell us how much the ECU could compensate for the increase in displacement.  I think your ideas of the larger MAF and injectors should benefit the increased displacement too. 

Just drove the van back from Salt Lake City via Hwy 40 and through Rocky Mountain National Park back to the Front Range.  The hardest part of the drive was Rabbit Ears Pass as you leave Steamboat.

Bill

I'm not a tuning expert by any means.  I don't totally understand the tuning issue here. As long as the engine can physically get enough air in/out then the ECU would be able to adjust the mixture as long as the injectors could physically flow enough more.

An increase in displacement seems like it would only cause an issue if the intake system couldn't flow in enough air/fuel. Then it would only have to be scaled appropriately.

But from what you have posted, it seems like you are only moving from a 2.5 to a 2.7l? An 8% increase. I'd bet the stock computer has 8% headroom in it. Or you could simply run an 8% larger MAF and 8% larger injectors. (and a more free flowing exhaust)