Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:20:41 -0500
Reply-To:     John Rodgers <j_rodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Rodgers <j_rodgers@CHARTER.NET>
Subject:      Re: reliability of 2.1L compared to 1.9L
Comments: To: T Murphy <tlmurphy73@YAHOO.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <20030924031753.22304.qmail@web40809.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

The 2.1L WBX has a tendency  for the crank journal end bolts to stretch,
allowing the rod ends to go oval and eventually to throw a rod. This is
why in shops you will see many 2.1L blocks  with a hole in the case.

That is the biggest difference.

If  the engines are taken care of,  get good preventative maintenance,
and don't have the very life driven out of them by running them at to
high an rpm,  they will last about the same. If you try to drive like
most people, and keep up with the traffic on the interstates, etc, you
will kill the engine. It is inevitable. They simply were not designed
for that kind of abuse.

My 88 GL turns  3800 at 65 mph. I NEVER run it faster. Of course the
"Impatient American" in their SUV's and what-have-you  hate me on the
highway.

But I say "Tough Nuggies!!"

Regards,

John Rodgers
88 GL Driver

Regards,

John Rodgers
88 GL driver
T Murphy wrote:

>does anyone know if there's a big difference in the
>reliability between the two engine types.  someone
>told me today that the 1.9L is a better engine.  thoughts?
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
>