Date:         Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:50:36 EDT
Reply-To:     JordanVw@aol.com
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         JordanVw@aol.com
Subject:      PLEASE READ- 1.9 vs 2.1...Driven both? Give your input..
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

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