Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:47:56 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Replace 1.9 with a 2.1 WBX
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
hey .......nice to get a positive comment ! and I do try to help.
re 'exhaust sound' ...........I 'suppose' you could say 1.9 mufflers lack
something ..........what I find is incorrect mufflers on them.
One odd thing I've seen on 1.9's is a muffler that's long like the 2.1
muffler is .......but 1.9 diameter, which is smaller than the 2.1 muffler.
On a 1.9 vaonagon this makes the muffler go about 5 or 6 inches too far to
the right.....
and the tail pipe 'outside' the side-line of the van's body.
If one of these long but thing mufflers is put on a 2.1........then the
diamter is too small for the muffler brackets.......
there was a picture posted online not long ago about a shop, or 'someone'
jaming old brake pads into the 2.1 muffler brackets to make the too thin
muffler 'fit.'
The 2.1 muffler is bigger in diamter, longer, and has heat shields around
it........
the whole exahsut system is just 'bigger and better' than the one on the
1.9. But the 1.9 one fits just fine if that's all you have.
I've only seen two types of heads..........OE VW / Audi ones with that round
symbol on them.
And AMC heads................I would much rather have the OE VW ones.
you asked about the compression ratio if using 1.9 heads on a 2.1 I think.
The VW type heads have a regualar 9 didget VW part number on them......
iI there is a suffix 'C' .........those are 2.1 heads.
I have seen one 1.9 run just fine with a 1.9 head on one side, and a 2.1 on
the other.
I have read I think that with the 1.9 heads on the 2.1 you'd have 10 to one
compression ratio....
which would be very high for unleaded regular and no knock sensor in the
igntion system.
AMC heads are the same for either engine, according to what I read.
power wise..........
the highest hp factory waterboxer engine is 110hp .....a 2.1
..................forget the two letter engine code right now.....
I think that engine uses a 10 to one CR, no cat, and ..........this is the
intersting part........
it uses the digijet fuel injection............( what our US model 1.9's
use ) and not the Digifant we have on our 2.1's .
So.....I figure maybe the Digjet might run a bit better.......maybe Digifant
is more 'smoggy' than Digijet.
My 83 Westy, that I'm going to post real soon on theSamba for sale..........
runs REAL good.
It's running a 2.1 engine, with 2.1 exhaust, good used OE cat, digijet fuel
injection that's stock for the 83 .......
it runs just Great.
Goes 70 easily at about 60 % throttle......have to be careful not to go 75
in it.......
that's manual trans of course.
that's also an earlier simpler vanagon ......no AC, and no power steering.
Handles great too.
A traditional VW 'feature' is rather low power tohelp the engine hang
together longer.
I must say though........the pistons and bottem end of waterboxer
engines.........they run a long, long time.
I think the 1.9 crank and bearings last a little longer than the 2.1 does.
maybe one of these days I'll fit an oil cooler from a 2.1 to a 1.9.
Just need to plumb it exactly correctly. Flow through the oil filter varies
according to thermostat opening I think.
I also just recently got this idea for running a waterboxer engine off a
fuel injection system that uses an Air Mass Meter, instead of the hokey and
mechancial Air Flow Meter............
and since I just love my 88 740 volvo sedan ............it appears to me
that a 740 volvo non-turbo fuel injection system would be 'just right'
............has an air mass meter with no moving parts in
it...............and if the knock sensor from the volvo can be incorporated
on the waterboxer engine ...........that would be ideal.
I can't say a waterboxer 'holds a setup' all that well...........however,
my own personal 2.1 in my 85 Wolfsburg Weekender has not missed a beat, not
one tiny glitch or stumble in over two years of near daily use - so maybe
they can work just right long term.
I'm also excited about the 16 valve jetta inline 1.8 and fuel system I just
got.
talk about power.........it 'should' be better than a waterboxer........it's
rated at 123 hp. And I hear they can get better fuel milage too.
Are we having fun or what ? !
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kao" <dtkao0205@yahoo.com>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>; "Scott Daniel - Turbovans"
<scottdaniel@turbovans.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: Replace 1.9 with a 2.1 WBX
> Thanks a lot Scott. I knew that I will hear from you. I knew I
> will receive lots of answers from you.
>
> I already found that the water pump is no good. I think I will
> use 1.9 cooling system. So I will not use the bad pump anyway.
> Glad to hear that I can use the 1.9 exhaust. But if I come across
> a 2.1 exhaust system I will use it. I like the sound of the 2.1
> exhaust. The sound of 1.9 exhaust is not very attractive to me.
> They are always regarded as loud noise.
>
> Yeah, I see that metal pipe end pointing up from the plenum
> box. OK, I will deal with that. I will use the 1.9 cooling system as
> I already have it on my 1.9.
>
> Oh, I think the cylinder heads are OEM. Thay have VW part number and
> logo on them. I do not see the AMC word on them. I guess this is a
> positive sign. Of course I will have to see inside to see if there is
> any cracks or bad pitting. Since the water pump is bad the heads
> may have been toast. I will have to open it up to see. Hope they are
> rebuildable still.
>
> Well, the difficult part is the bottom block. I have not worked on
> any short block project before. I will have to figure out if the
> block is usable or not at all as Allan seemed to suggest.
>
> One more question. Does 2.1 give more than just a kick in terms of more
> power? My 1.9 has 82 HP on the spec. 2.1 seems to have 105 or more?
> I think anything over 100 is going to be significantly better than 80+.
>
> Thanks again, Scott.
>
> David
>
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@turbovans.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@turbovans.com>
>> Subject: Re: Replace 1.9 with a 2.1 WBX
>> To: "David Kao" <dtkao0205@YAHOO.COM>, vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 5:34 PM
>> hi,
>> yes.....you can use the 1.9 exhaust system..........either
>> exhaust system, 1.9 or 2.1 will bolt up to either engine.
>> I've done it both ways.
>> the 2.1 exhaust is better build and has a bigger
>> muffler......
>> if I had both on hand, I'd use the 2.1 exhaust for
>> sure.
>> The mounting and support system is 5 times better than what
>> the 1.9 uses.
>> if you didn't get the aluminum rear engine mounting
>> bracket for the 2.1 ......which has bolt holes for the 2.1
>> exhaust brackets..........two nice solid ones........you
>> should have those parts too.
>>
>> yes, you can use the 1.9 AFM on it.
>> actually...........you sort of have to use the 1.9 AFM and
>> air filter box............since the main coolant hoses by
>> the firewall in the throttle body area stick out right where
>> they AFM and air box go.
>>
>> But you can keep the larger 2.1 intake runners, plenum box,
>> and throttle body ........those are 'bigger' and
>> you'd want them on there.
>> Your 1.9 intake boot will fit right on the throttle body
>> too......how convenient !
>> - pretty sure.
>> oh, one slight mod to the plenum box............where a
>> little metal tube turns 90 degrees and points straight
>> up......
>> you won't to cut part of that off so the 1.9 auxiliary
>> air valve and hoses can connect as before.
>>
>> use your 1.9 distributor and igniter with your 1.9 fuel
>> injection system...............I just did that and the van
>> just rips.
>>
>> cooling system wise.....need to convert the 2.1 to 1.9
>> cooling system.
>> ( or have a whole slew of plastic cooling system parts to
>> convert your 1.9 van to 2.1 cooling system.........I did
>> that on my 85 Wolfsburg Weekender...........I don't like
>> putting in plastic t-stat housing, plastic water distributor
>> etc............but you can keep the oil cooler on the 2.1
>> that way . )
>>
>> I haven't done it, but you could keep the oil cooler on
>> the 2.1 and figure out how to interface it with the 1.9
>> cooling system.
>> Need the 1.9 water pump on of course, if running the 1.9
>> cooling system.
>>
>> but 'all parts' swap over between the two long
>> blocks.
>> one of these days I might try incorporating the electronic
>> air idle valve into the 1.9 fuel system.........
>> there are only a few inputs to the electronic control box
>> for the 2.1 idle valve........and it is a steadier idle than
>> what the 1.9 delivers usually.
>> have fun !
>> if anyone else wants to buy a rebuildable block........
>> either 1.9 or 2.1..........I got 'em, and will sell.
>> located in Southern Oregon.
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kao"
>> <dtkao0205@YAHOO.COM>
>> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:11 PM
>> Subject: Replace 1.9 with a 2.1 WBX
>>
>>
>> > I took a plunge and bought a used 2.1 WBX engine today
>> from a savage
>> > shop. I have been looking for a long while for a 2.1
>> that can be
>> > rebuilt to replace my 1.9 from my 83 Westy. I found it
>> on Craigslist
>> > last night. I kept calling this morning then received
>> a call back
>> > near noon. The engine was still available and I went
>> to pick it up.
>> >
>> > It came with all the intake manifolds, fuel injectors,
>> fuel lines,
>> > fuel pressure regulator, water pump, thermostat
>> housing, all 3 mount
>> > harness for alternator, power steering pump, air
>> conditional compressor,
>> > etc. The fly wheel and pressure plate were taken off
>> but are included.
>> > There is no distributor but they managed to find one
>> to give it to me.
>> > There is also a throttle body in place but no AFM
>> there. I was told
>> > I could have one for extra money.
>> >
>> > The only major parts that are missing are exhaust
>> headers and everything
>> > beyond that. I could turn the crank pully a full turn
>> without hearing
>> > any sound that was suspicious. I believe this is
>> possibly a good core to
>> > rebuild from. Of course I have to take it apart to be
>> sure. I was told
>> > that it has head gasket leak and it was pulled 4
>> months ago from a 88
>> > Vanagon. It shows no sign of being taken apart
>> recently.
>> >
>> > What I intend to do is to rebuilt it using as many 1.9
>> parts on top
>> > of the engine and swap out my 1.9 from my 83 Westy.
>> The 1.9 engine
>> > was rebuilt by me last year. But I have always wanted
>> a 2.1. I need
>> > more power because I went to Yosemite very frequently.
>> >
>> > I think this was done by many before. My first
>> question is if I can
>> > use the 1.9 exhaust system still. I think the answer
>> is probably not.
>> > The next question is if I can use the 1.9 AFM attached
>> to the 2.1
>> > throttle body. I can try it to find the answer. But I
>> would like to
>> > hear what you folks would suggest. I will look into
>> the archive too.
>> > But maybe this is something to discuss about one more
>> time here.
>> > Any suggestions on how to do a good rebuild on the
>> bottom block will
>> > be appreciated. I am not in a big rush. I am willing
>> to take 3 to 4
>> > months to get it done.
>> >
>> > Oh, BTW, I paid $100 for the 2.1. I think this is very
>> cheap. The shop
>> > said they have had it for 4 months so they just want
>> to get rid of it.
>> >
>> > David
>
>
>
| 
