

| Subject: | Re: Power of a 2.0L Air cooled vs 2.1L??? |
| From: | Ben huot |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:42:36 -0500 |
Thanks guys, i guess by your reply that a few of you don't know me! I have a 73, and i went to Baja California with this one...from Montreal with a dead engine, i came back on 1 cylinder from California (3 burned exhaust valves - 11000 miles trip), so i know about the Bay VS Vanagon, i also owned an 87 Westy for 2 years and i now partially own an 84 (long story). http://www.benplace.com/baja_intro.htm Talk about wind!!!! did you ever go to Baja????? Ask Mark or my friend Derek! Max speed with a somewhat dead engine was 45mph, in third speed..... all day!!!!! So i can live with the bus poor handling. I always drove my 87 at 60-65mph at the most, same for my 73: 55-60 at the most, i can live with that. Since i rebuilt the 1.7L (73) i feel it got 90% of the 87 2.1L power, so my guess is that a good in shape 2.0L with twin carb should give me at least the same power as an 2.1L. http://www.benplace.com/engine_73/engine_bay1.jpg I just hate the 73 interior, i cannot live with that anymore. But i want to stick to the Bay, i like air-cool engine, simple to work on it when your far, far, far away from home. With all the p-mail i received, i belive the Vanagon 2.0L is alot less powerful than a Bus/bay with a 2.0L Conclusion: am building a 2.0L as we speak, my plan is to put out a strong 90 to 110hp out of this one amd keep it reliable. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Ben http://www.benplace.com/
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »