Date:         Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:42:36 -0500
Reply-To:     Ben huot <huotx@VIDEOTRON.CA>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Ben huot <huotx@VIDEOTRON.CA>
Subject:      Re: Power of a 2.0L Air cooled vs 2.1L???

Thanks guys, i guess by your reply that a few of you don't know me!
I have a 73, and i went to Baja California with this one...from Montreal
with a dead engine, i came back on 1 cylinder from California (3 burned
exhaust valves - 11000 miles trip), so i know about the Bay VS Vanagon, i
also owned an 87 Westy for 2 years and i now partially own an 84 (long story).
http://www.benplace.com/baja_intro.htm
Talk about wind!!!! did you ever go to Baja????? Ask Mark or my friend
Derek! Max speed with a somewhat dead engine was 45mph, in third speed.....
all day!!!!!

So i can live with the bus poor handling. I always drove my 87 at 60-65mph
at the most, same for my 73: 55-60 at the most, i can live with that. Since
i rebuilt the 1.7L (73) i feel it got 90% of the 87 2.1L power, so my guess
is that a good in shape 2.0L with twin carb should give me at least the same
power as an 2.1L.
http://www.benplace.com/engine_73/engine_bay1.jpg

I just hate the 73 interior, i cannot live with that anymore. But i want to
stick to the Bay, i like air-cool engine, simple to work on it when your
far, far, far away from home. With all the p-mail i received, i belive the
Vanagon 2.0L is alot less powerful than a Bus/bay with a 2.0L

Conclusion: am building a 2.0L as we speak, my plan is to put out a strong
90 to 110hp out of this one amd keep it reliable.

Thanks for your comments.
Regards, Ben
http://www.benplace.com/