Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:44:16 -0400
Reply-To: Puzerewski <Puzerewski@email.msn.com>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Puzerewski <Puzerewski@email.msn.com>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Subject: Re: Air vs. Water - pro's and con's
It sounds to me like you have already made up your mind...from reading the
email that is.
Adam Puzerewski
81 westy
74 beetle
86 cabrio
Vanagon Partsmobiles
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Gunnings" <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VANAGON] 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
| 
