Oops, I hit the wrong button.  I do have some comments!

JordanVw@aol.com wrote:
>
> Owned both a 1.9L and a 2.1L??? which do ya think is "better"?

Do you want more power or longer life?  I noticed a significant increase
in power, but I had over 200,000 miles on the 1.9 I replaced, and it was
still running strong if burning a little oil.  The 2.1 let go at
138,000.

> i'd just like to hear a few other peoples opinions about which they prefer..
> i have a 1.9L automatic van, and a 2.1L automatic van, and am trying to weigh
> the differences between one or another.  (cant keep both)
> do the 2.1L really have more "spunk" than the 1.9L? ive driven both, i really
> cant tell.

With an automatic you lose so much in torque converter you may not
notice much.  However, pay attention at 75 mph, you should detect a
difference.

> which has the best reliability?   i've seen both that failed.

You've seen my experience.  I agree with Robert Lilly, the shorter rods
and longer throw of the 2.1 put stresses on the rods that the 1.9
doesn't.  If you keep the 2.1 just rebuild it between 125,000 and
150,000.  You can probably go longer with the 1.9, at least I did.

> in the old aircooled motors, it was often said that the 1600 single ports
> were more durable than the dual port 1600's ... the dual port just being a
> hopped up singleport. bored out for bigger pistons.. more performance, but
> less life.  Can that also be said for the 1.9 vs the 2.1, the 2.1 just being
> a "hopped up" 1.9 engine??

Hopped up only from greater displacement due to a longer stroke,
everything else is the same.

> ive also heard someone say that the 2.1L waterboxers were more prone to
> catastropic failure (throw rod, punch hole in case, etc) than the 1.9's. fact
> or fiction?

I have to say fact, just try to find a rebuildable 2.1 core!  When mine
let go it punched  holes in the top of each case half, and also breached
the water jacket, since all the coolant drained out when I removed the
oil plug!

> mostly trying to figure out which is gonna last the longest, and has the best
> performance (yes i know that the words "performance" and "vw van" shouldnt be
> used in the same scentence)

Mutually exclusive goals, choose one or the other!

> anyway, post your opinions to the list.. and we can compare..
> chris

Stuart MacMillan
Seattle

'84 Vanagon Westfalia
'65 MGB (Driven since 1969)
'74 MGB GT (Restoring)

Assisting on Restoration:
'72 MGB GT (Daughter's)
'64 MGB (Son's)

Parts cars:
'68 & '73 MGB, '67 MGB GT