Date:         Sat, 2 Mar 1996 01:06:15 -0500
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         SyncroHead@aol.com
Subject:      Re: 1.8 gas vs. 2.1 boxer

In a message dated 96-03-01 20:37:31 EST, jonww@ix.netcom.com (Jon Walton)
writes:

>
>With all the recent wasserboxer bashing that has been going one, I am 
>curious about the gasoline 1.8l conversion.  For those of you that have 
>done this conversion, how does the van drive?  How would you say the 
>torque curves compare on the 2.1 vs. the 1.8 inline?  It seems the 
>horsepower ratings are about the same.
>
>I will probably be opting for a factory rebuild wasserboxer, but I too 
>am curious as to why VW did not offer a gas 1.8 inline or even the 16v 
>version.  Do these engines not have the lower end torque that a flat 
>four can offer?
>
>Jon
>'85 Westfalia
>
There are three primary reasons I know for VW not putting an inline gas
engine in the Vanagon:
1. The in-line engines are much longer (2x) than the flat four, so with the
'82 & '83 diesel Vanagons the transmission had to be mounted further forward
and the axles angled back to the wheels.  This greater axle angle adds stress
to the CV joints. 
2. The in-line engines are also much taller than the flat four.  This would
either require the rear floor to be raised or (as in the diesels) the engine
tilted over on its side.  I've heard that this has lead to lubrication
problems.
3. The in-line engines were created for use in a much smaller/lighter car and
are "tuned" for HP and torque peaks up in the 5,000 to 6,000 RPM range, which
is good for high speed driving but poor for getting a heavy vehicle off the
line.  VW probably could have done some adjustments and lowered the RPM of
these peaks to make the engine more suitable for use in a van or truck.  They
didn't.

Jim Davis