Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:08 -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
Comments: To: Jim Arnott <jrasite@EONI.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=response

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