Date:         Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:52:14 -0800
Reply-To:     Stuart MacMillan <macmillan@HOME.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Stuart MacMillan <macmillan@HOME.COM>
Subject:      Re: gas mileage
Comments: To: jpalmer@MB.SYMPATICO.CA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I've made the switch and my mileage has dropped about 1 MPG.  I run a
little over 15 MPG in town now (this will be more like 16 MPG in the
summer) and 18 MPG on a recent 225 mile freeway run.  I can cruise at 75
effortlessly now with the 2.1 and its 1.25 rocker arms, and pass at 85
if necessary.  Having more power and using it WILL reduce gas mileage!

Also, the 2.1 runs hotter, but I was able to install the 2.1 oil cooler
using an external bypass oil filter set up.  I think this is worth the
trouble as well as the extra plumbing.  So far, I think it is very nice
upgrade.  You can put all that extra power to the wheels if you don't
have A/C and P/S, and you really notice the difference.

Jeff Palmer wrote:
>
> Is there a significant difference in gas consumption between 1.9
> and 2.1l motors?  Someone wrote last week that they got about
> 300 miles on a tank of gas with a 2.1.  I get about 350km (210
> miles) on about 50l of gas consistently with my 1.9l (in the
> summer, its much less in the winter of course).
>
> I had been considering moving to a 2.1l model as an "upgrade"
> until there were some questions as to its reliability and
> whether or not the increase in power was worth the extra cost.
> Better fuel economy would be an important factor though.
>
> They're all the same size gas tank, aren't they?
>
> Jeff
> 85 Westy
> Winterpeg

--
Stuart MacMillan
Seattle

'84 Vanagon Westfalia w/2.1
'65 MGB (Daily driver since 1969)
'74 MGB GT (Restoring sloooowly)

Assisting on Restoration (and spending OPM):
'72 MGB GT (Daughter's)
'64 MGB (Son's)

Stripped and gone but their parts live on:
'68 MGB, '73 MGB, '67 MGB GT