Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:42:04 -0700
Reply-To: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Organization: Genentech, Inc.
Subject: Re: Gotta Be a Wasserboxer!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sean,
I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion of the 2.1 waterboxer. To push a
3500+lb steel barn on wheels around at speeds up to and even over legal speed
limits from just 2.1 liters is, to me, quite amazing. I feel that the stock
engine is well matched to it's intended purpose, and the low end torque of the
wbx is quite useful. I have found it now problem to keep up with normal traffic,
and the only time the wbx could use more power is in climbing grades at highway
speeds. But it's the van's brick-like aerodynamics that are the problem, not this
engine.
For smoothness, quietness and overall driveability, I don't think you can beat
the stock 2.1L engine. I wouldn't consider putting something else in back unless
I had a real need for a lot more power. Gas mileage could be better, but the cost
of a conversion will buy an awful lot of gas!
I think you can find your extra 10 - 15 hp in some of the mods available for the
wbx, like the rocker arms or the European 10:1 pistons. Some Euro-spec Vanagons
make as much as 112 hp stock.
Dan
Sean Lynch wrote:
> Hey again!
>
> I would like to thank everyone who's responded to my posting so far.
>
> <quasi-rant>
>
> However, I would like to restate though, I have NO intentions of putting
> anything but a wasserboxer into the arse end of my '86 GL. As I'm a diesel
> owner too, I couldn't bring myself to gut one of the few remaining trannies
> on this side of the Atlantic that could potentially wind up in my dieselbox
> someday.
> Secondly, I will not cut, mutilate, or otherwise defile my van, as
> several conversions require. Not even for the stereo. All I'm looking for is
> about 105-110 hp, with a little more low-end torque. Top speed is fine now.
> It'll do 88 flat out, and that's outside the green zone on the tach, and
> taboo in my book. Money isn't an issue, as I'm willing to spend whatever I
> can muster to do it right.
> Thirdly, I saw the Vanagon article in Hot VWs on the saga of the author's
> '91 Carat. Considering the mileage between failures, this guy must have had
> some questionable mechanics. He claims the heads worked off after a full
> top-end rebuild, and in less than a thousand miles? C'mon. Don't get a gun,
> get a warranty! I'm getting a warranty on parts/labor on this build, and I
> plan to use it if necessary. This motor's lasted 125K before starting to have
> problems, and only because the previous owner let it sit for THREE years!
> I realize what a mechanical/financial "cow pie" a Vanagon is, but I like
> the ride, handling characteristics, and the charisma it possesses. Plus,
> compared to the diesel, the 2.1L is damn quiet. :) I've looked at all the
> posts about the crappy stock motor, and how it would have to improve just to
> suck, but I like it. Chalk it up to "tough love". People keep British cars
> and Italian cars, and it's not because they're reliable, but because the
> owner loves the car. Face it, those cars suck in their own ways too. Next
> time you start cussing your 'boxer, think Trabant or NSU Ro80, and consider
> yourself blessed. :)
>
> </quasi-rant>
>
> Sean L.
>
> Two 2.1's and None The Wiser
> (but I keep the diesel for backup)
| 
