Date:         Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:09:19 -0700
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: 2.1 VS 1.9 AFM
Comments: To: Evan Mac Donald <evanm@ATT.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

I Evan,
I hope some smart person will comment on this.
I have a few dodgy 1.9 AFM's and was wondering if I could try one of my 2.1'
ones....
I haven't even bothered to look in Bentley yet though ..
if internal wiring and logic is the same,
I'd think one might work, or at least not do harm.

and ...either AFM will fit on either the 1.9 or 2.1 air intake boot.
those are different diameters where they go on the throttle body , yes, but
on the AFM upper end...
they are the same.
I run full 1.9 fuel injection incuding AFM,
on a 2.1 engine, with 2.1 throttle body, 2.1 plenum and intake runners, and
2.1 full exhaust , and run that off digijet ...works great !

but yeah ...maybe someone will comment ..- electronics wise ( or I could
look in Bentley )
but physical fitment is not an issue.

Scott
www.turbovans.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Evan Mac Donald" <evanm@ATT.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 9:57 AM
Subject: 2.1 VS 1.9 AFM


Aside from the physical difference of the inlet size at the rubber boot end,
are
there any real differences between these two items? If both complete sets
(airbox, boot, etc.) were available, would a 2.1 AFM work with a 1.9 ECU?
Just
wondering, cuz I will be putting my 2.2 (up from 2.1) rebuild into a 1.9
chassis...