Owned both a 1.9L and a 2.1L??? which do ya think is "better"? i'd just like to hear a few other peoples opinions about which they prefer.. i have a 1.9L automatic van, and a 2.1L automatic van, and am trying to weigh the differences between one or another. (cant keep both) do the 2.1L really have more "spunk" than the 1.9L? ive driven both, i really cant tell. which has the best reliability? i've seen both that failed. in the old aircooled motors, it was often said that the 1600 single ports were more durable than the dual port 1600's ... the dual port just being a hopped up singleport. bored out for bigger pistons.. more performance, but less life. Can that also be said for the 1.9 vs the 2.1, the 2.1 just being a "hopped up" 1.9 engine?? ive also heard someone say that the 2.1L waterboxers were more prone to catastropic failure (throw rod, punch hole in case, etc) than the 1.9's. fact or fiction? mostly trying to figure out which is gonna last the longest, and has the best performance (yes i know that the words "performance" and "vw van" shouldnt be used in the same scentence) anyway, post your opinions to the list.. and we can compare.. chris |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.