Date:         Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:57:24 -0700
Reply-To:     David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Engine Conversion's Done (long)
Comments: To: KENWILFY@AOL.COM, Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
In-Reply-To:  <6eb2e48b.360873d4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 00:06 9/23/98 EDT, KENWILFY@AOL.COM wrote:
>4.  In-line 4 gas conversion
>Pros: Good fuel mileage, very reliable power plant, very available motor,
>parts are cheap and easy to pick up, VW powerplant again makes servicing
not a
>problem at the dealer, who is very familiar with this motor.  Horsepower is
>same or more than waterboxer (depending on which motor you choose- 1.6l,
1.8l,
>2.0l).  This conversion can be done using a diesel Vanagon and has been done
>more than any other conversion.  It has proven to be a good and reliable
>choice.
>Cons: Not as much power as some of the other conversions (Chevy or Subaru),
>not as much low end torque as a normal Waterboxer.

The 2.0L has more power and more torque than the wasserleaker and it comes
on lower in the RPM range too.  Another pro is modifications are cheap and
plentiful too...


-- David Marshall  Quesnel BC Canada  mailto:david@volkswagen.org --
--       73 Audi 100LS, 78 1.8L VW Rabbit, 80 2.0L VW Caddy       --
-- 87 Audi 5KQ, 85 1.8L VW Cabrio, 88 2.0L VW Syncro Double Cab   --
--         Volkswagen Homepage http://www.volkswagen.org          --