Date:         Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:13:59 -0400
Reply-To:     Ed Duntz <eduntz@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Ed Duntz <eduntz@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: 1.9 or 2.1 starter for a 2.1 in an 85
Comments: To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <039301cbe1f9$ae3d7280$6401a8c0@PROSPERITY>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=response

If I am correct, the earlier ones were 3/4 HP, and the later ones were 1 HP.
I would suspect that you'd not notice much difference, but given the choice,
I'd choose the more powerful one. I have seen some auto parts places that
sell the same one for both applications. Some state that it's 1 HP, some
don't say.

Ed in CT

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Scott Daniel - Turbovans" <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:41 PM
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Subject:      1.9 or 2.1 starter for a 2.1 in an 85

> Engine is brand new ..
> starter looks 100 years old.
> it's a fresh rebuilt tight 2.1 block and heads....with 1.9 engine
> management
> and EFI.
>
> Since it apperas to be very due for a starter anyway ...( it looks orignal
> ...195K miles on van  )
>
> and given that 85's have a  smallish battery cable from batt to starter
> ................ ( particularily this factor )
>
> which starter would be better..
> a 1.9 one or a 2.1 one ?
> manal trans.
> thanks.
> S.
>