Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:09:01 -0800
Reply-To: tony gould <tgerr55@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: tony gould <tgerr55@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: WTB: Westy '80+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks for the time to update me w/your
experience/opinions.....yes the 2.1L does seem more
robust - i'll revisit the mechanic again...also the
ramp is what i'll probably put in - I have the
resource PVI (Prarie Valley Indus) -- anyone know of
others?
Thanks
Tony
--- BenTbtstr8@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/00 4:18:07 PM Pacific
> Standard Time,
> tgerr55@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << Thanks for the info Ben -- that is a bit higher,
> but
> perhaps worth it w/the Audi 1.8. >>
>
> The 1.8 and the 5-spd transmission is worth that for
> most people. An inline
> conversion kit w/ a 2.0 engine runs about $4000 with
> shipping plus another
> $1200 for installation. The 5-spd will run about
> $1900 plus about $300
> installation. Can you see what I mean? Those two
> improvements translates to
> $7400 if you had them done.
>
> <<Could you elaborate on the problems with the
> Wasserboxer engine? >>
>
> Wasserboxer engines have problems with head gaskets,
> heads, and headstuds.
> The headstuds are bolted thru the case w/ coolant
> flowing all around them.
> They are prone to corrosion which can lead to broken
> studs, cracked heads
> etc. It would take me all night to explain
> everything. Bottom line is they
> need constant attention so that they will last. Most
> people break something
> every 60,000 miles or so. However, in my case, I
> have over 186,000 miles on
> my engine w/o any such problems. Routine maintenance
> and the use of the
> proper non-phosphate coolant can do wonders.
>
> << I heard from a VW mechanic the 1.9L is more
> reliable than the
> 2.1L Wasserboxer? Is this your experience? >>
>
> I think it's time to think about another mechanic.
> The general consensus
> among the Vanagon community is that the 2.1L not
> only improved power but also
> cooling. The trouble prone thermostat housing is
> improved, Better routing of
> coolant hose, etc. The 2.1L's also last longer
> because they are less stressed
> than the 1.9L engines. They heads are somewhat
> interchangeable but again, the
> 2.1 has bigger valves. The 2.1L uses Digifant for
> engine management. 1.9L's
> use the antiquated Digijet. Digijet lacks the
> knocksensing capability of the
> Digifant systems which again help your engine last
> longer.
>
> Most of these are extensively explained by
> listmembers more technically
> inclined than I am. The best thing I can tell is
> from my experience, the 2.1L
> though similar to the 1.9L differed greatly in
> drivability. The extra
> horsepower allows me to actually pass some cars even
> with the A/C on.
> Maintenance wise, they are just as simple to work
> on. I've owned both models.
> Since neither broke as been the experience of my
> peers, I can't say much
> about which is truly better based on just
> experience. However, I have 3
> Vanagon owner friends within my immediate
> neighborhood. All three have had
> broken engines, I have not. All three are 1.9L. To
> argue that they are older
> is not that valid considering my vans have much
> higher mileage than theirs. I
> also visit a VW Vanagon shop in Colma. There are
> always Vanagons in there for
> service. Seven times out of ten, it's a 1.9L being
> service. Of course, I did
> not check mileage on those vans.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Ben
>
> PS:
> Some Vanagons came with wheelchair lifts. However,
> it's much more practical
> to use ramps which are readuly available.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!
http://calendar.yahoo.com/
| 
