>A popular replacement engine (in CA at least because the KEP kit meets
>our smog specs) is the late 80's - early 90's Subaru 2.2L.  Note that
>this engine's production run was just about the same time as the VW 2.1L
>WBX. With negligable extra displacement it produces 50% more horsepower
>out of the same grade of gas with at least equal reliability.
>
>I don't buy a Subaru (actually I do have two) because it isn't a Vanagon
>and they don't make anything close.  I love most everything about the
>Vanagon except the under powered engine.  The Subie engine and most of
>the drive train is great.  I have much less respect for the rest of
>their running gear, in particular their CV joints and staked wheel nuts.
>So I intend to combine the best of both.
>
>Ed
>
>John Lunetta wrote:
>
>>Don't forget that VW stopped production of the Vanagon water boxer
>>with the 91 model year. Modern Jap engines are naturally better
>>made. So are newer VW engines.

OLDER Japanese engines were better-made.

>>  Well it's just a matter of preferance.What can I say, Why don't
>>you guys just buy a subaru. Good Luck.  John 90 Vanagon GL

The VW wasserboxer was archaic when it came out. The rest of the
world had gone to SOHC and was well on the way to using only DOHC
4/5-valve engines; so here comes VW with a "new" pushrod-OHV engine
derived directly from a 1963-or-so Beetle engine.

Subaru's 1988 & later boxers are super reliable (though a couple of
mechanics have told me the turbos give trouble... I smell a bias
there). BUT the auto trans are trash. I hear this from EVERY mechanic
I ask, and several Subie enthusiasts have told me the 5-speeds are no
good either.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut
Friends don't let friends do Windows