>As I have said, torque is everything (next to the engine fuel
efficiency map)
> to understanding the performance of these vehicles. Well, anyway, for
some
> time, I have collected the engine performance curves from VAG
technical
> publications. I'll publish the references if anyone wants to know.

Frank is right-on here.  Torque is everything.

>version. The 1.9L waterboxer outperforms the A/C engine, but is
significantly
> inferior to the I-4 1.8L 8V engine. However, the 2.1L waterboxer is a
> credible performer clearly outdoing the 1.8L I-4. The curve for the
Audi 3A
> 2.0L which should be representative of the ABA block and the SA/TIICO
> offering is stronger than the 2.1L WB, but not by much. Of course the
Turbo
> Audi 3A blows them all out of the petroleum.

This isn't quite right.  The 3A is probably a good representation of the
Tiico because they probably have the same length connecting rods.  But
the ABA is a taller engine and has longer connecting rods moving the
torque further down the RPM range.  I think the ABA would launch a
Vanagon off the line better.  The ABA is prefered over the 3A for A1/A2
VW engine swaps because of that low-end torque.

My experience with my newly installed Tiico largely supports Frank's
claims.  I still haven't been allowed to run the Tiico over 4000rpms due
to engine break-in but under 4000rpms it is very similar to the 2.1
waterboxer in power.  It has more power, but not much.  Once I get it up
higher - and - also missing from Frank's analysis - OVER the boxer's
redline - the difference will be more pronounced.

I think the 2.1 waterboxer doesn't get its due:  it is a very well
suited engine.  I didn't do swap because of power I did it for the
reliability of the I-4, the superior fuel economy, and to get rid of
that curse VW called Digifant.

Damian