140hp to 201hp Upgrade for Eurovan

[TOD]

Has anyone upgraded a 140HP (pre-2001) Eurovan to the 201HP engine? I'm looking at a 2000 Eurovan Camper but would like the extra power. I believe the key difference is in the head and ECU. Thoughts?

[gti_matt]

Well it's the head and ECU for sure at the very minimum. However, also bear in mind that the 24V vans came with ESP as well and so the ECU is probably involved in expecting the inputs and outputs for that too, integrated with the braking system. So might need something more such as a different ABS controller? Unless the new ECU can be "told" via VAGCOM that there is no ESP system present and turned off.

Are you really sure it's going to be worth doing this though? If you can get the chance to drive a 2001+ Eurovan Camper (compare apples to apples weight-wise) with this engine, you might be surprised that the difference isn't as big as you think. I drove a later van and it didn't feel significantly better than my 12V 2000 VR6 at the time (and the owner of the other van drove mine). We each agreed that the drive wasn't that different. Both engines have nearly the same torque (177 ft-lbs on the 12V and 181 ft-lbs on the 24V, only 4 more). The only place where the 24V will outpace the 12V is at high revs with its higher redline and the ability to rev higher and breathe better. But you (I hope) don't drive all over winding it out to 5000 rpms.

Go for a drive in one if you can and see what you think but I bet you'll be underwhelmed at the difference.

[TOD]

Thanks for the first hand experience. I've driven several 2000's while shopping for a camper so what I'm struggling with is a) the price spread between the 140HP vs 201HP campers (not all of which is HP I know), b) not having driven the 201HP, I don't know what I don't know. Hearing your experience has been very helpful. And you're right, 5000RPM isn't a range a camper would visit often! Thanks Again.

[gti_matt]

Definitely try it so you have firsthand feel and if you do feel the power is worth it, great, but I'm just saying that the 61hp on paper didn't translate much to reality in the real world from what I felt. Heh...maybe I drove an out-of-tune "slow" 24v :-) for all I know. But definitely try it before you attempt the swap.

[CdnVWJunk-e]

I've owned both. Matt is pretty well right. Passing power on a 2 laner is night and day otherwise pretty similar especially around town. The 24V seemed a touch smoother in it's power delivery too but whether or not that's correct is subjective I'm sure.

[A4dream]

I have driven both... NOT owned just driven... My T4 is the short nose 2.5L. However I was inthe exact same situation as you last year. I wanted the extra HP when we were looking for a CAMPER EV. I drove many... I could not find enough reasons espically power to spend the extra $$$$. It just wasnt enough to make it worth it...

[A4dream]

BTW.. Never found one that I would agree on price so I bought a A6 wagon and we are getting a lightweight camper to haul behind the EV this summer! lol

[gti_matt]

Passing power on a 2 laner is night and day otherwise pretty similar especially around town.

The 12V did feel like it ran out of steam when driven balls-out since it doesn't rev as high as the 24V and at higher revs it gets a bit winded, but yeah other than that, in normal driving they felt about the same to me. Even so, a 200hp 2.5-ton box is not going to feel like a BMW either. There's a little extra edge with the 201hp engine but it's not that often that you're driving where it's felt.

[turbo84q]

Has anyone upgraded a 140HP (pre-2001) Eurovan to the 201HP engine? I'm looking at a 2000 Eurovan Camper but would like the extra power. I believe the key difference is in the head and ECU. Thoughts?

I believe the 12v uses a double row timing chain and the 24v uses a single row timing chain, If so you would have to do a full engine swap and not a head swap. I could be mistaken about this. Swapping a 12v to a 24v would be a LARGE undertaking and probably the rule of eights would apply here.
Rule of eights:
Anything you don't do on a daily basis or for a living, will take you 8 times longer and cost you 8 times more than you initially estimated...


Good luck

[TOD]

Well I had a chance to drive a 201hp version this weekend, on the DC Beltway of all places. I have to agree with Matt & Junk-e, having the extra HP delivers those ft-lbs quicker. Wouldn't say I'd need 'em every day but good to know they'd be there. Much in agreement with the rule of 8's so this would be a buy not build decision.

[gti_matt]

I guess my final thought is yeah if you find a 201hp version for the same or not much more than a 140hp version then yeah it makes all the sense in the world to get it.

But if you find a screaming deal on a 140hp version, it'll hardly be a dog either and a screamingly good deal really will still leave you with a very liveable van and $$$ change in your pocket.

But upgrading a 140hp to a 201hp just sounds a bit pricey for what you ultimately get, doing the work yourself, sourcing a parts van and/or drivetrain, etc. The time spent doing it doesn't quite translate to a lot of return IMHO.

[gti_matt]

And consider this...from some googling.

1993 Eurovan 5-cyl 109hp I see numbers for 0-60 anywhere from 14-high 16s seconds.

2000 Eurovan 140hp about 12 seconds

2002 Eurovan 201hp about 10.6 seconds (only 1.4s faster than 2000).

Why did the 2000 have a bigger improvement over the 1993 than the 2002 vs. the 2000?

Torque, not HP. The torque differences between 1993 and 2000 was about +37 ft.lbs.

The difference between 2000 and 2002 was about +5 ft-lbs.

The HP differences were the other way around...smaller between 1993 and 2000 vs. 2000 and 2002 models. The bigger HP difference yielded the smaller improvement in 0-60. It's torque that you care about here (mostly) so don't give too much weight to the HP difference.

[dkw1624]

I have driven both back to back (my 1999 weekender and my brother-in-laws 2003 weekender) and could not tell except at the very high end of the rev range. IMHO you are almost never at that end of the tach anyway. For me, the pre-01s were more desirable since there was not the timing chain issues.

Dave

[carboncow]

I have driven both back to back (my 1999 weekender and my brother-in-laws 2003 weekender) and could not tell except at the very high end of the rev range. IMHO you are almost never at that end of the tach anyway. For me, the pre-01s were more desirable since there was not the timing chain issues.

Dave

Dave, found this old thread. What is the timing chain issues with the 24v? I'm new to VR6 world and considering a 12v vs. 24v.

[gti_matt]

Dave, found this old thread. What is the timing chain issues with the 24v? I'm new to VR6 world and considering a 12v vs. 24v.

Some people with the 24V I think had issues with premature wear of the sprocket teeth on one of the sprockets. IDK if it was a lubrication issue, not enough oil changes, or a hardware issue (many suspect the latter) where the sprocket wasn't hardened enough. The teeth would wear and the chain would skip and then pistons hit valves.

The 12V isn't w/o problems either. That engine suffered from timing chain guides that could wear and allow the chain to get too loose. IDK if that was resolve by the time the Eurovan got the VR6 but it definitely was an issue on older VR6s in general.

[Lithe]

I test drove one later model Eurovan with the 24v VR6 engine and thought it was pretty smooth and good power.
I bought a 1999 Eurovan last summer after driving a couple different 12v VR6 vans. I can't really tell much of a difference, just like some others have already said. The torque is great, so around town and on the highway is moves pretty well. The fact that kills these vans on the road is how heavy they are, and how tall they are.

All said, it is still tons nicer than my old 2.2L Subaru powered Vanagon!

Andy

[TOD]

Sorry, I seem to have left this thread. I ended up buying a 2001 Camper on eBay from a nice couple in Montana around Easter in 2011. I'm now the third owner and couldn't be happer. My eldest and I flew out and spent three days driving back to North Carolina. I work in safety crews at sports car races and the boys work timing and scoring. Mom prefers hotel "camping" so when the boys and I head out, she gets a girls weekend out!

I'm going to start a new thread on a mod i'm making to the Norcold fridge. Should have that completed over the next few weekends then i'll write it up.

[my_vw_sucks]

As Matt mentioned earlier, keep an ear out for timing chain noise on your 24v. Here's what the timing chain sprocket looked like on the 2001 EV MV I just picked up. SORRY FOR THE BIG PIC

this is what it's supposed to look like



You may throw some codes by the time you get to this point or you may not.

[bigfatgeek]

Just out of curiosity, how many miles are on your '01 EV?

[my_vw_sucks]

about 80k

[bigfatgeek]

Yikes, I'm closing in on 80k myself. Everything runs great though. is there any relatively easy way to check this? Or is it buried?

[my_vw_sucks]

The timing chain was never designed to be a serviceable item on either the 12v or 24v VR6. The chain is sandwiched between the engine and transmission. With the transmission in the car you can only hope to get to the top of the timing chain and maybe the top guides. So really, the only way you're going to know about this is by listening for timing chain noise (sounds kinda like rolling a coffee can full of nuts and bolts but faster obviously). Or, if you're lucky or unlucky, you get a check engine light throwing a code from your cam position sensor. On 12v's the issue is usually your timing chain guides are bad on a 24v it's most likely the sprocket. If you take it to a shop be ready for about 18 hrs of labor. Parts are relatively cheap and you'll want to replace all the guides as well as the sprocket. While you're in there it might be a good idea to replace the rear main seal and water pump.

[gti_matt]

The timing chain was never designed to be a serviceable item on either the 12v or 24v VR6.

Which is why I don't like timing chains. Manufacturers like to claim they are lifetime and therefore don't design for easy(ish) replacement of them. Yet unless they are truly perfect and don't need any replacement or servicing, it's awful to deal with them.

[oasis]

And consider this...from some googling.

1993 Eurovan 5-cyl 109hp I see numbers for 0-60 anywhere from 14-high 16s seconds.

2000 Eurovan 140hp about 12 seconds

2002 Eurovan 201hp about 10.6 seconds (only 1.4s faster than 2000).

Why did the 2000 have a bigger improvement over the 1993 than the 2002 vs. the 2000?

Torque, not HP. The torque differences between 1993 and 2000 was about +37 ft.lbs.

The difference between 2000 and 2002 was about +5 ft-lbs.

The HP differences were the other way around...smaller between 1993 and 2000 vs. 2000 and 2002 models. The bigger HP difference yielded the smaller improvement in 0-60. It's torque that you care about here (mostly) so don't give too much weight to the HP difference.

I've done some searching and I seem to be getting some (a) conflicting answers, or (b) conflicting interpretations of answers. I saw this thread during my search but didn't want to derail it with my question. Now, I have come back to it.

Quick background ... I owned a '93 Westy and an '85 Vanagon. My dad won't be driving his '02 Passat anymore and it is too much of a duplicate of what we now have. While searching for something fun and less practical, we also want something practical. Vanagons are either too junky or too over-the-top for what we want -- a simple transporter. I know the parameters I want with Vanagons. I am much more in the dark with EuroVans.

Our '93 was powerful enough most of the time (steep inclines being the exception), but I vowed wanting a 5-speed next time if there was a next time. Finding those have been no different than finding Vanagons. So, now EuroVans are back on my radar and I will concede accepting an automatic with a 6-cylinder since importing one from Europe is out of the question.

Two basic questions. (1) Like the partial list above, what engines (preferably with specs) were offered in what years? (2) Were all 6-cylinders VR6's?

It seems with some ads, VR6 would be mentioned. In others, simply V6. Although my dad's Passat has the 1.8T, I know a V6 was a consideration for him in '02. The shop I go to has advice about the different engines but they weren't sure of the breakdown by years for EuroVan.

[gti_matt]

Two basic questions. (1) Like the partial list above, what engines (preferably with specs) were offered in what years? (2) Were all 6-cylinders VR6's?

All six-cylinder models are VR6s regardless of badging (VW for a while was downplaying the 'R' part for some odd reason).

1997-2000 is the 12V VR6 with 140hp and 177 ft-lbs torque, engine code AES.

2001-2003 is the 24V VR6 with 201hp and 181 ft-lbs of torque, engine code AXK.

[oasis]

Thanks!