Date:         Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:42:56 -0700
Reply-To:     "MOST,DAVID" <most@ucla.edu>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "MOST,DAVID" <most@ucla.edu>
Subject:      Re: PLEASE READ- 1.9 vs 2.1...Driven both? Give your input..
Comments: To: Mark Drillock <drillock@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To:  <399D6527.AB90A78C@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Though it's an unscientific appraisal, I think that PS makes a huge
difference.  I have two '87s.  The first is a non-GL camper w/AC without
PS and 150k.  The second is a GL camper without AC w/PS and 160k.
Granted, the GL has extra weight with the camping equipment, but the
difference in power is significant enough that I asked a mechanic about it
when I first obtained the GL.  He said that it was in fine shape, and I
actually think that the GL engine sounds a little better.  But, the power
difference is considerable.  It's particularly noticeable when trying to
accelerate or when going uphill.

David


On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Mark Drillock wrote:

> The 2.1 has much more power at the bottom end and noticeably more at all
> rpms. I have owned several of both, all with manual trannys. Power
> steering and A/C rob some power. Many 1.9s have neither so they would
> feel stronger in comparison. I have had a couple 2.1s without PS and
> they really moved.
>
> Mark
>
> Benjamin Tan wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 8/17/00 7:51:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, JordanVw@aol.com
> > writes:
> >
> > << 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 >>
> >
>