>At 07:34 PM 7/26/02 -0400, Christopher Berchin wrote: >> I realize after looking at the power output (145 hp, 156 lb-ft) that it >> would be logical to just use the 3.3 flat 6 from the SVX, but has anyone > >I think this engine has headgasket or head cracking probs, >and despite the ~13 extra HP a 2.2 is still a better choice. >Wouldn't the 2.7 be a pushrod engine, not OHC? Noisy. >Tim The ER27 is SOHC, 16-valve. Its low power output is a bit odd, but if it developed any more the head-cracking would be even worse... I'm sure it is a NICE engine, but that's not the same as either powerful or reliable. Of course not every example will fail, but apparently there is a tendency to... as KEP states. -- Andrew Grebneff 165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand <andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz> Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.