Date:         Fri, 25 May 2012 23:54:16 -0700
Reply-To:     neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Why no bolt-on HP upgrades to the 2.1 WBX?
In-Reply-To:  <CA+n284MTTYYy0RNuJ3vBcDchAdE-kHG8t-fu47NhT9vPb2NOkA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I saw that article.

Anyone know if this is Mega Squirt engine management with some variations?

As a newcomer to the 2.1 WBX, disregarding coolant jacket to head seal
issues and connecting rod stretch bolts issues exacerbated by heat, etc., I
think the WBX is a great balance between torque where needed and, when
engine in top shape, decent fuel efficiency. Like even though my 2.1 is not
be dialed in 100%, I'm driving home in it tonight pulling the same hills in
3rd w/o feeling the same rate of drop off in power I would feel in my Jetta
swap.  (two different animals. e.g. I miss the "get up and go" in upper
RPM's that I have in the Jetta swap and it generally has better fuel
efficiency, not to mention cheaper easier to get parts!)

But these are the ramblings of a WBX newb with relatively minimal engine
design knowledge.

Still. I think guys like Tencentlife (Chris) have a good thing going on and
hope development and improvement of the WBX keeps on keepin on.

Neil.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, pickle vanagon <greenvanagon@gmail.com>wrote:

I found this:
> http://www.gowesty.com/library_article.php?id=1532
>
> For some reason when they say it it sounds less exciting than when Jim was
> discussing a similar possibility.
>
>

--
Neil n

65 kb image Myford Ready For Assembly  http://tinyurl.com/64sx4rp

'88 Slate Blue Westy to be named.

'81 VanaJetta 2.0 "Jaco"  http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/

Vanagon VAG Gas I4/VR Swap Google Group:

http://groups.google.com/group/vanagons-with-vw-inline-4-cylinder-gas-engines