In reading the answers I've grown to not favor: A. inline fours tiico included B. inline fives (isn't this what the VW 2.6 is... how could a five cylinder be a boxer?) C. suburu 2.2 These don't have enough torque at low rpms IMHO
And I do favor: A. 2.3 waterboxer or boston bob 2.1 option three (or both) B. 2.5 suburu (obd II) C. 3.3 suburu (obd I)(6cylinder SVX) The question is, how do these compare in torque at low rpms... Also is it practical to import a 2.3 from SA? Turn key would be nice... what are the chances that it would pass CA smog??? And then too, what would be the change in gas mileage? Headgaskets could still be problem with the 2.3??? But Boston Bob states that the AMCs he uses on his 2.1's are of a better composition and less prone to pitting...
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |
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Vanagon mail messages have been archived.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.