I have to agree with Warren.  This level of excitement means most of you
should go look for a life.  It's this kind of crap that has encouraged me to
quit this list twice before.  I realize it's just the wackos who usually
post and most list members are ok people.  And that makes this list valuable

Patrick
'85 Westy 135 HP 2.2L (Subaru)

On 10/16/02 1:10 PM, "Warren Chapman" <vwsyncroguy@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

> This thread cracks me up......what a bunch of hot and bothered armchair BS.
> Charts and figures may be nice to speculate about, but the "proof of the
> pudding" is in the driving, ....before and after.
>
> One comment here made some sense to me.....
>
>> As for seat of the pants feel. Most lay folk I have dealt with think
>> that the car has more HorsePower, when in fact where they are
>> experieninge the change is in increased Torque...at a given RPM. That
>> doesn't mean that there is higher max torque, just that there is more
>> at a point where the folks notice it.
>
> If you notice it .....isn't that the whole goal..????  Whether it's torque
> or hp or donkey turds...seems to me if you notice it.....it counts.
>
> Charts and numbers are great to speculate about on this list (what fun!)
> but don't mean s__ (except for bragging rights on Vanagon.com) unless you
> can feel something with that good ole' instrument.....the subjective
> glutimus maximus.
>
> Someone pointed out recently ( with some validity perhaps) that my fine
> instrument (the glute) just might be influenced towards the optimistic side
> by the recent departure of significant amounts of cash from its owner.
> Hmmmmmm....something to think about......
>
> However,....I recently drove a so-called 2.2 waterboxer,..... not by the
> builder being discussed here...it was prepared by Marco at Buslab in
> Berkeley, CA.  My good ole' glute told me it easily felt stronger (is this
> torque ??) going through the gears ....than the usual
> waterleaker, ......and I've driven a few waterboxers.....and owned five
> different versions in the last two years.  Since my glute hadn't parted
> with any cash in order to have this particular fine experience, could it be
> considered "objective" in this case ????
>
> But then I'm a known, unobjective, non-fan of the waterboxer anyhow.  IMHO
> 1.9, 2.1 or 2.2......its still a waterleaker and its still limited in rpm's
> to about 4000 (useful) 5000 (terminal).
>
> My vote (which ain't worth much, I know but 20 other people voted here)
> says spend the money on a better engine.
>
> Warren Chapman
> 90 Syncro Westy,
> (also with a 2.2L engine, only by Subaru)