Actually there are performance upgrades for the motor.  I think with a
high-flow muffler and a K&N filter you are looking at figures closer to 90
HP.  Take the catalytic converter away, mine is hollow, and you're talking
more.  A set of ratio rockers will yield you more bottom end power, too.  A
stock '88 1.8L I-4 is about 90 to 95 HP.  I've owned a few Jettas and Golfs.
I love the motor.  They'll run as long as you keep fresh oil in them.

I guess we're talking about a trade-off:  Added cost of conversion with the
I4 plus the teething problems or the WBX with performance upgrades.
Increased fuel economy of the I4 or the drop-in WBX.  Just how much less
does the I4 burn than the WBX in the Vanagon? Many questions unanswered.  I
still haven't made up my mind.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Jones <SBWC919@aol.com>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: WBX Nightmares

> hey chris - i agree with some of what you say, my biggest problem with the
> wbx is the lack of power- and poor fuel efficeincy. if this was a balanced
> shaft motor with about 50 more hp. and 40-55 mor foot pounds of torque, it
> would be much better! but i mean come on 80 hp from 1.9 liters! thats not
> very efficient ! a 1.8 liter golf is well over a hundred! ever try to buy
> peformance parts for your wbx?? cam, headers etc? not much out there is
> there??  just my 2 cents