>As I have said, torque is everything (next to the engine fuel efficiency map) > to understanding the performance of these vehicles. Well, anyway, for some > time, I have collected the engine performance curves from VAG technical > publications. I'll publish the references if anyone wants to know.

Frank is right-on here. Torque is everything.

>version. The 1.9L waterboxer outperforms the A/C engine, but is significantly > inferior to the I-4 1.8L 8V engine. However, the 2.1L waterboxer is a > credible performer clearly outdoing the 1.8L I-4. The curve for the Audi 3A > 2.0L which should be representative of the ABA block and the SA/TIICO > offering is stronger than the 2.1L WB, but not by much. Of course the Turbo > Audi 3A blows them all out of the petroleum.

This isn't quite right. The 3A is probably a good representation of the Tiico because they probably have the same length connecting rods. But the ABA is a taller engine and has longer connecting rods moving the torque further down the RPM range. I think the ABA would launch a Vanagon off the line better. The ABA is prefered over the 3A for A1/A2 VW engine swaps because of that low-end torque.

My experience with my newly installed Tiico largely supports Frank's claims. I still haven't been allowed to run the Tiico over 4000rpms due to engine break-in but under 4000rpms it is very similar to the 2.1 waterboxer in power. It has more power, but not much. Once I get it up higher - and - also missing from Frank's analysis - OVER the boxer's redline - the difference will be more pronounced.

I think the 2.1 waterboxer doesn't get its due: it is a very well suited engine. I didn't do swap because of power I did it for the reliability of the I-4, the superior fuel economy, and to get rid of that curse VW called Digifant.

Damian