Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:54:17 -0400
Reply-To: The Gunnings <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: The Gunnings <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
Subject: Re: Air vs. Water - pro's and con's
Hi Beckett, I must say that this is the first time I have received two
messages from anyone before having had a chance to respond to the first
message. As may be, I take this to possibly suggest that I may have touched
a minor nerve, somewhere. Didn't necessarily intend to. In the first
place, I don't "hot rod" so this is not a consideration for me. But, to
those who do..... have a ball. That is not the issue. And before I can
intelligently respond to your statement, that whatever I may have written
"is a statement you might want to rephrase after you get your facts
straight", I ask you, what facts are that need straightening, as this is not
made clear to me by your message? (That's a question)
What I mean when I describe the wbx 1.9 engine as being "better" than the
"newer versions" as more to do w/ a combination of factors, rather than any
one single thing. First, however, let me preface what I write w/ the
unfront understanding that I am no mechanic. Most of what I have learned
about the 1.9 I have gleaned from the List. And "better" can be a very
subjective word, maybe not the best choice. The reasons why I chose to
climb out on this particular limb, despite the noise of the chainsaw
firing-up behind me, has to do w/ mechanically based concepts, such as,
reading about the location of the 2.1 ECU brain under a seat somewhere,
possibly overheating because of being stifled and solder melting as a
result. (Ouch, that must hurt!) The idea put forth by "Boston Bob", I
believe, that the pistons in the 2.1 are the same size as the 1.9 and may
have to work harder because of it. Possible uneven wear on the crank
because of the increased stroke of the 1.9 pistons in the 2.1. Plus having
read in the List about some folks getting extreme longevity (was it
380,000+miles) from the wbx 1.9 by careful and proper maintenance. Have not
read the same degree of longevity associated w/ the 2.1. That's all. Not
much, I realize, by some peoples standards, but more than enough for me to
realize that the 1.9, although not as powerful as the 2.1, might be a
"better" choice for some us. The "us" I refer to are those of us who prefer
to poke along and not interested in "hot rodding". I do not recall that
poking along at the posted speed limit is, yet, against the law. My take on
these engines, both the 1.9 and the 2.1 is that the best thing that can be
done is to stay on top of them. A well maintained 2.1 is superior to a
poorly maintained 1.9. And visa versa. But let us not wear blinders.
Simply put, the 1.9 and 2.1, while ponies of the same mare, are horses of a
different color. That's all. If I am incorrect about my understanding of
the issues I've cited, let me know. I look forward to hearing from you.
Cheers,
David Gunning
| 
