Theres a Vanagon club in Europe called the 80-90 Club. I became a member when I got my Syncro, 80-90 signifies the years Vanagon was made. Yes there are 91's but they were made in 90 and sold as 91's. Anyway I told you that story to tell you this one.
First let me open this can of worms.... Again
I am about to assemble the Champagne's engine, and the Vanagon Westy (aircooled) I just aquired, needs an engine.
The thermostat on the Champagnes engine is damaged, so I went to order another. Guess what...No longer available
So I revisit the Flaps/No Flaps question.
Yucel doesn't have flaps
Jack says "Do you really think that you are smarter than the team of German engineers that designed that engine?"
I pulled this off of the Flaps/No Flaps thread on Club 80-90's message board. This gentleman seems to have done some research and discovered some interesting stuff. Stuff that makes me think twice about removing them. Here's the post:
I wondered about this when I had my Baywindow 1800 - essentially the same engine as the 2.0l CU. When I first had it there was no thermostat fitted, but the flaps were still there and fixed in the 'hot' position. Having examined the way it works I decided that a standard setup was worth a go, so I fitted a stat, cable and adjusted it. Some things became immediately apparent; both the fuel and oil consumption slightly improved, and it became obvious that the stat, flaps and auto-chokes are arranged to work together.
When the flaps are fixed open, (or removed I imagine - more on that a bit later), the engine takes quite some time to warm up , particularly so in cold weather, and the choke 'switches off' before the engine is up to temperature meaning that either no tickover or lift-off the gas stalling could be a problem, when either completely cold or completely hot it wasn't a problem, but in the region in between it could be very irritating to drive.
I suspect that if you live out of town, or drove at times that didn't involve idling in traffic at that certain point in the heat up cycle, this would be less apparent, but where I live I'm often straight into a bit of traffic.
The other thing that concerns me is that having examined the system closely it's quite clear that the CU engine's cooling flaps aren't just open or closed, they don't just either allow air flow or stop it. Specifically the left flap when in the 'hot' position directs air through the oil cooler, but does not in the 'cold' position, or if it's removed. Having seen how it works, I don't think removing the flaps or having them fixed - in any position - would be a positive step, there certainly won't be much airflow through the oil cooler with no flaps, and if fixed in the 'hot' postion the air flow through the cooler will mean the oil will take a longer time to reach suitable temperature, I suspect it is this that accounted for the change in oil consumption, I can't be certain that's the specific reason of course, but it did change when the original bits were refitted,
Can't answer for the CT engine - haven't had that much to do with them.
I know the specific parts for the CU engine are NLA new, but if the flaps are still and the stat missing, it must be possible to arrange something with Beetle/Baywindow bits.
END OF THREAD-
Here's the whole thread
http://forum.club8090.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=113164 Funny thing is one of the replys says (in different words and with a British accent) "Do you really think that you are smarter than the team of German engineers that designed that engine?" #@rofl3
Anybody have a thermostat for a late Bay they aren't using? (I'll probably need one for an aircooled Vanagon too)
