Do you just mean smaller capacity like the little EJ15, EJ16 and EJ18?
few people have done it but may as well make it worth while, the bigger engines are just as economical and the same amount of work to fit.
Are you somewhere where it's hard to get conversion kits?
I got a friend in Egypt making his own as it's very exspensive to get one sent there.
helbus
A.k.a.: Pete S
Super Administrator
Mad fabricator, paint and body
Posts: 7386
Threads: 312
Registered: September 1st, 2002
Member Is Offline
Location: In the garage chopping cars into bits
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue
Mood: In the thinking chair
posted on January 13th, 2014 at 07:14 PM
Look at my build. Look at the pictures.
You have to do everything the same whether it is 1.6 all the way to 2.5
The 2.2 SOHC works well for cost and smooth economical drive. If I would do it again I would start with 2.5 DOHC. Anyway seeing as you have to do
evreything to fit the engine, whatever size, read my thread, and see if it helps to understand the engineering details needed. You will be spending
$4000 I estimate minimum to do the whole job, and maybe another $800 for engineering certificate to make it legal.
Mine cost about $6000 all up and I fitted it all myself. With outside engineered flywheel, adapter plate, sump, wiring, exhaust, radiator. I did the
engine mount brace myself.
Posts: 460
Threads: 68
Registered: February 26th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Strathbogie Vic
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on March 28th, 2014 at 09:05 PM
If you go EJ, as said above- go 2.0 or 2.2.
If you are refering to the earlier EA series engines then they will cost you almost as much but there are some advantages over the EJ, not many but
some.
The EA81 is the one to get not the OHC ea82 with its array of belts for little benefit. The ea81 with a weber 32/36 is a very simplistic engine,
compact and light. So little chance of having weight issues depending on where you place your radiator etc.
The EA series has limit with modifying the intake as a water channel runs along under the manifold as part of the manifold. really the intake is
primitive. Also the engine needs an approapriate cam and few other improvements whereas the eJ does not.
But if you want a compact easy to maintain engine it isnt such a bad choice. EA81 nuts like me love them because its simple old school. Otherwise- go
the EJ route and get to know the engine well. It will serve you better than most engines. Go Subie!
Posts: 4270
Threads: 109
Registered: June 3rd, 2010
Member Is Offline
Location: Kyneton, VIC
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: Side ways
posted on March 29th, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally
posted by tweety
If you go EJ, as said above- go 2.0 or 2.2.
If you are refering to the earlier EA series engines then they will cost you almost as much but there are some advantages over the EJ, not many but
some.
The EA81 is the one to get not the OHC ea82 with its array of belts for little benefit. The ea81 with a weber 32/36 is a very simplistic engine,
compact and light. So little chance of having weight issues depending on where you place your radiator etc.
The EA series has limit with modifying the intake as a water channel runs along under the manifold as part of the manifold. really the intake is
primitive. Also the engine needs an approapriate cam and few other improvements whereas the eJ does not.
But if you want a compact easy to maintain engine it isnt such a bad choice. EA81 nuts like me love them because its simple old school. Otherwise- go
the EJ route and get to know the engine well. It will serve you better than most engines. Go Subie!
here ius my ea81 without carbie. about 105 kgms.
Are you sure they are 105kg? I sold a ea81 few years ago, I just picked it up and gave it to the buyer. Felt Like 60kg to me, it still had most of
the stuff on it too.
71 notchback,
Past owner of, 70 NB, 73 SB and 72 FB TLE
tweety
Wolfsburg Wizard
Posts: 460
Threads: 68
Registered: February 26th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Strathbogie Vic
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on March 29th, 2014 at 09:43 PM
see below
EA-81: 1,8 liter, 100 to 110 hp, about 85 kg(187lbs) dry weight
EJ-22: 2,2 liter, 130 to 160 hp, about 120 kg(265lbs) dry weight
EJ-25: 2,5 liter, 165 to 200 hp, about 135 kg(298lbs) dry weight
EJ-33: 3,3 liter, 225 to 275 hp, about 160 kg(353lbs) dry weight
Yeh likely less than 105.
That adapter plate weighs a bit.
I was thinking wet weight with all accessories. I needed to know for that time I was to replace the 1916. I lift mine out by hand too. Last week I
did it again. Then lifted the auto and transaxle with Torque converter. That assembly was less weight than the ea81 engine. No wonder they use them
in planes
A.k.a.: Andrew Westwood
Custom Title Time!
Keen to finish some projects
Posts: 1921
Threads: 132
Registered: December 7th, 2003
Member Is Offline
Location: Alexandra Hills Brisbane QLD
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Yellow
Mood: Having fun in our great land
posted on March 29th, 2014 at 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally
posted by tweety
see below
EA-81: 1,8 liter, 100 to 110 hp, about 85 kg(187lbs) dry weight
EJ-22: 2,2 liter, 130 to 160 hp, about 120 kg(265lbs) dry weight
EJ-25: 2,5 liter, 165 to 200 hp, about 135 kg(298lbs) dry weight
EJ-33: 3,3 liter, 225 to 275 hp, about 160 kg(353lbs) dry weight
Yeh likely less than 105.
That adapter plate weighs a bit.
I was thinking wet weight with all accessories. I needed to know for that time I was to replace the 1916. I lift mine out by hand too. Last week I
did it again. Then lifted the auto and transaxle with Torque converter. That assembly was less weight than the ea81 engine. No wonder they use them
in planes
No such thing as an Ej33 , they would be an EG33
Don't let body work get in the way of real suspension travel
mnakandala
Learner Dubber
Posts: 4
Threads: 3
Registered: May 26th, 2013
Member Is Offline
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on March 29th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Thank you tweety btw lot of great information where were you all the time???
vlad01
Compulsive Aussie Vee Dubber
Posts: 4270
Threads: 109
Registered: June 3rd, 2010
Member Is Offline
Location: Kyneton, VIC
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
Mood: Side ways
posted on March 30th, 2014 at 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally
posted by OZ Towdster
Quote:
Originally
posted by tweety
see below
EA-81: 1,8 liter, 100 to 110 hp, about 85 kg(187lbs) dry weight
EJ-22: 2,2 liter, 130 to 160 hp, about 120 kg(265lbs) dry weight
EJ-25: 2,5 liter, 165 to 200 hp, about 135 kg(298lbs) dry weight
EJ-33: 3,3 liter, 225 to 275 hp, about 160 kg(353lbs) dry weight
Yeh likely less than 105.
That adapter plate weighs a bit.
I was thinking wet weight with all accessories. I needed to know for that time I was to replace the 1916. I lift mine out by hand too. Last week I
did it again. Then lifted the auto and transaxle with Torque converter. That assembly was less weight than the ea81 engine. No wonder they use them
in planes
No such thing as an Ej33 , they would be an EG33
wow! really? EG33 is 160kg?
That is freaking heavy as! That can't be right. 5.7L LS1 is just a nudge over that.
I heard the EZ series 6s were only a fraction more than the EJ series. Not sure on the EG series though.
EA81 85kg? mmm yeah thats liftable fairly easyish. It still weighs more than I do if thats really the weight.
71 notchback,
Past owner of, 70 NB, 73 SB and 72 FB TLE
tweety
Wolfsburg Wizard
Posts: 460
Threads: 68
Registered: February 26th, 2011
Member Is Offline
Location: Strathbogie Vic
Theme: UltimaBB Pro Blue ( Default )
posted on April 1st, 2014 at 08:35 PM
thanks mnakandala but when you own a "bitza" thats the nature of the game. When I took out the VW 1916 and replaced it with the ea81 it only left
the T3 auto tranaxle as being relevant to this site. Which still has helped me immensly I might add.
So I scroll thru here often to see if I can help others just like they have helped me. But engine wise I get info from ausubaru. Then there's trike
forums that have moved to Facebook. So its busy ownign a bitza lol
