Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:55:56 -0800
Reply-To: "M. Jade" <tinho2010@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "M. Jade" <tinho2010@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
In-Reply-To: <033d01cbc950$26e59d60$6801a8c0@PROSPERITY>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I am learning a bit of the technicals from this thread so far. Thanks everybody's responses.
My 85 Vanagon originally had a 1.9 engine with the oil light flickering symptom. The engine was swapped out with a 2.1 last year with all the 1.9 original harness. The 2.1 engine came from a dismantler in Oakland from a wrecked Vanagon. I heard it run before buying it. I did not realize that it loses coolant on a regular basis that did not happen to my original 1.9. I am going to have to take it apart and hopefully it is just a head resealing project.
The engine runs good so I do not anticipate a major overhaul. I think I am going to do more than just head gaskets. I may want to split the case and swap out all the rod bolts with the ones on my 1.9 engine. I am hoping to be able to use the new 1.9 barrels and rings. This will have to depend on the condition of the pistons on the 2.1. I may have to replace the 2.1 heads with the 1.9 heads from the 1.9 engine depending on the condition. I know I am not doing a full rebuild. I may actually find I don't need to do any of these but a head gasket job.
My 1.9 engine can not be too good at this point because it has the oil light flickering symptom. It did run OK though. But the 2.1 is a bit stronger. I do like to have the 2.1 on my 85 Vanagon. I will keep the 1.9 engine as a spare in case the 2.1 gets a vent by itself in the future then I still have an engine to work on.
Thanks again to everyone's input to this thread. I will report back my progress in the near future.
MJ in sunny California
--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM> wrote:
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:27 AM
hi..
talking with an engine supplier I'm getting rebuilt 2.1 from ..
they say 2.1's do that due to the stretch rod bolts eventually stretching
more ..
that usually leads to increased oil clearance on the rods ..
which may lead to rod failure, thus ventilating the case.
they say 1.9's don't do that due to using a non-stretch type rod bolt..which
they assemble 2.1's with now.
and
with the longer stroke of the 2.1 there is the increased angle affect, as
pointed out by Dennis yesterday.
btw, this engine rebuilding company I'm talking to will even built a 2.1 in
a 1.9 case since some people think the 1.9 case is stronger ..
but they say the cases are identical in construction ..
and it's the 2.1 rod bolts that are the cause of blown 2.1's.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Arnott" <jrasite@EONI.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Mark Dearing" <VWBrain@AOL.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:06 AM
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Subject: Re: [VANAGON] Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
>
>> In a message dated 2/10/2011 1:17:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> inua@CHARTER.NET writes:
>>
>> So are you saying the 2.1L WBX is more prone to a rod through the
>> block than a 1.9L engine is?
>>
>> John
>
> In my observation....
>
> I've never seen a 1.9 in the boneyard with a hole in the case. I've never
> seen a 2.1 without one.
>
> Draw your own conclusions.
>
> Jim
