The Gunnings wrote:
>
 possibly suggest that I may have touched
> a minor nerve, somewhere.  Didn't necessarily intend to.

Hi David,

First, what happened to Sammy DA Dog's sign off? Does he not agree with
your point of view? I'd like to hear from him about this...........

While there is clearly a separate air-cooled and WBX following, I don't
think there is any debate between 1.9L & 2.1L owners. However I think we
must admit that the 2.1L development benefitted from the 1.9L durability
record. That is to say VW could look at the warranty claims of the 1.9L
while developing the 2.1L and make design changes. This means that the
1.9L may have weakness' that the 2.1L does not.

The majority of all vehicle engine control modules are concealed in
tight, cramped hiding places, so the 2.1L Vanagon Digifant control
module lives on an "estate" under the rear seat.

Boston Bob's point about the 2.1L con rods(not pistons or crank)is more
a wise rebuilding tip than denoting a weakness. Additional stroke adds
to the motor's torque and replacing rods during a major overhaul is a
cheap price for the additional WBX torque.

The cooling system changes from the 1.9L to the 2.1L suggest that the
1.9L layout was flawed. If not, why did VW change the system for the
2.1L so dramatically?

The 2.1L engine controls are cleaner with ign timing determined inside
the Digifant control module(no distributor vacuum influence), loss of
multiple air valves & lines and so forth.

Lastly, and I'm no expert here, Digifant is a true digital
processor(like BMW Motronic) while the Digijet is a slower analog
processor(like BMW L-Jetronic). Being born of later computer
electronics, Digifant is faster and more efficient. If this is not
correct, there's probably not more than 40 or 50 computer gurus on the
list who will crucify me for this blasphemy!

Anyway I believe the 2.1L development learned valuable lessons from the
1.9L in-use problems and thus it is a better overall design. Now I want
to hear from Sammy Da Dog!

Regards,    John