Date:         Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:53:56 +0100
Reply-To:     Tony Polson <tp@WHSMITHNET.CO.UK>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Tony Polson <tp@WHSMITHNET.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: 1 - power; 2 - cooling; 3 - weekender
Comments: To: T Murphy <tlmurphy73@YAHOO.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

T Murphy wrote:
>
> 3 questions..
>
> 1 - is there a noticeable difference between the power
> of a 1.9L and a 2.1L?  hills, mileage, etc..?

Here in the UK the 1.9 (carburetter) has 78 bhp and the 2.1
(fuel injected) has 112 bhp.  There is a *huge* difference
in acceleration and torque for hill climbing, with about a
10% fuel consumption penalty for the 2.1 injection.  The 86>
2.1 injection is also known to be very, very reliable, more
like what one should expect of a VW product.

> 2 - what are the advantages/disadvantages of having a
> water-cooled versus air-cooled?

Hmmm.  You will get exactly as many opinions as the number
of people you ask!  I think the greater power of the
water-cooled engines is worth having but the reliability
problems of the 1.9 water-cooled make me wonder.
Personally, I would be happiest with either the 2.0 litre
air-cooled or the 2.1 litre water-cooled injection engine.
The 2.0 for its air-cooled authenticity and the 2.1 for
smooth power.

> 3 - why, if the camper westfalias have more 'stuff',
> do the weekenders seem to cost more; what is a 'fair'
> price for a weekender? (i'm in norcal)

Perhaps they are rarer?  As I'm in the UK I don't know
exactly what models were offered in the US.

> i'm sorry if this sounds like a essay question on a
> westfalia high school exam... any response is
> appreciated.

That's an exam I would like to pass - with honours!

Best regards,

Tony