It sounds to me like you have already made up  your mind...from reading the
email that is.

Adam Puzerewski
81 westy
74 beetle
86 cabrio
Vanagon Partsmobiles
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Gunnings" <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [VANAGON] Air vs. Water - pro's and con's

> Hi Beckett,  I must say that this is the first time I have received two
> messages from anyone before having had a chance to respond to the first
> message.  As may be, I take this to possibly suggest that I may have
touched
> a minor nerve, somewhere.  Didn't necessarily intend to.  In the first
> place, I don't "hot rod" so this is not a consideration for me.  But, to
> those who do..... have a ball.  That is not the issue.  And before I can
> intelligently respond to your statement, that whatever I may have written
> "is a statement you might want to rephrase after you get your facts
> straight", I ask you, what facts are that need straightening, as this is
not
> made clear to me by your message?  (That's a question)
>
> What I mean when I describe the wbx 1.9 engine as being "better" than the
> "newer versions" as more to do w/ a combination of factors, rather than
any
> one single thing.  First, however, let me preface what I write w/ the
> unfront understanding that I am no mechanic.  Most of what I have learned
> about the 1.9 I have gleaned from the List.  And "better" can be a very
> subjective word,  maybe not the best choice.  The reasons why I chose to
> climb out on this particular limb, despite the noise of the chainsaw
> firing-up behind me, has to do w/ mechanically based concepts, such as,
> reading about the location of the 2.1 ECU brain under a seat somewhere,
> possibly overheating because of being stifled and solder melting as a
> result.  (Ouch, that must hurt!)  The idea put forth by "Boston Bob", I
> believe, that the pistons in the 2.1 are the same size as the 1.9 and may
> have to work harder because of it.  Possible uneven wear on the crank
> because of the increased stroke of the 1.9 pistons in the 2.1.  Plus
having
> read in the List about some folks getting extreme longevity (was it
> 380,000+miles) from the wbx 1.9 by careful and proper maintenance.  Have
not
> read the same degree of longevity associated w/ the 2.1.  That's all.  Not
> much, I realize, by some peoples standards, but more than enough for me to
> realize that the 1.9, although not as powerful as the 2.1, might be a
> "better" choice for some us.  The "us" I refer to are those of us who
prefer
> to poke along and not interested in "hot rodding".  I do not recall that
> poking along at the posted speed limit is, yet, against the law.  My take
on
> these engines, both the 1.9 and the 2.1 is that the best thing that can be
> done is to stay on top of them.  A well maintained 2.1 is superior to a
> poorly maintained 1.9.  And visa versa.  But let us not wear blinders.
> Simply put, the 1.9 and 2.1, while ponies of the same mare, are horses of
a
> different color.  That's all.  If I am incorrect about my understanding of
> the issues I've cited, let me know.  I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David Gunning