Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:34:26 -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: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
all right..first I have heard of this.
for sure 1.9 and 2.1 intake runners are slightly different sizes.
I'll have to see if the intake ports are different sizes..
the gasket for the intake ports in a waterboxer engine set are for either
engine's head I believe...
so right now I don't think the intake ports are different sizes, but I'll
check.
so perhaps AMC heads differ in compression ratio.
I read quite a while ago they same head goes on either engine ..
not true apparently.
I have a 1.6 diesel AMC head......the only one I have ever seen.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Schwaia" <vw.doka@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
> AMC sells different heads for the 1.9 & 2.1.
>
> Part #: 910185 is for 2.1 liter
>
> Part #: 910184 is for 1.9 liter
>
>
> The only difference I can think of is the intake manifold. 2.1 liter is
> 30mm wide, 1.9 liter is 28mm.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott Daniel - Turbovans
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:48 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
>
> Hi MJ,
> that's a good set up ...2.1 running on 85 Vanagon Digijet fuel injection
> and
> 1.9 cooling system.
> That's what I have in my personal van..
> though I have all 2.1 intake and exhaust on the 2.1 long block.
>
> waterboxers have either orignal VW type heads, or AMC brand heads.
> The AMC ones only come in one part number to fit either a 1.9 or a 2.1 is
> my
> understanding.
> so swap those around if you want.
> but orginal type VW heads..
> put 1.9 ones on 1.9's ....................and 2.1 ones on 2.1 engines.
> There is a suffix C in the part # on the head of the 2.1 heads.
>
> what I find commonly on 2.1 heads is the exhaust valves leak a tiny bit.
> so I always have a basic valve job done on them, then new head gaskets.
> Very often that will freshen up an engine very nicely.
>
> the pistons and the barrels are not the weak part at all.
> I either keep those in service..
> or I have honed the barrels and put on new rings..
> or buy a whole new set of Pistons and barrels. The last 1.9 set I got,
> Braizzian made was very afforable, and I read some rather highish figures
> for 2.1 P & B's on here recently.
>
> and I might go down to the rod bearings more often. I've done that a few
> times. Can do that without splitting cases. It's fiddly but possible.
> It's my understanding that you can use 1.9 rod nuts/bolts on the 2.1 rod
> ..but not certain about that.
> An engine rebuilder I am getting an engine from tells me they use the 1.9
> fasteners on the rods, but didn't say they are using 1.9 rods in a 2.1 ..I
> should ask 'em about that.
>
> have fun !
> scott
> www.turbovans.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: M. Jade
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM ; Scott Daniel - Turbovans
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
>
>
> 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
| 
