Well Ben,

I'd definitely have to disagree with you. When I went from a '68
camper with 1776cc DP, to a '78 Westy with a fresh 2.0l, the
difference was amazing. Much more power, about the same mileage. I
tried Webers and DeLortos in place of the FI on the '78, but never
could get better performance, and could not pass the emissions
tests, so I went back to the Digifant.

Going from the '78 (after a blown injector hose burned it to the
ground) to an '86 2.1l Westy, again the power increase was
significant, even though the van is heavier, and average highway
fuel *consumption* dropped by 3-5 mpg with the WBX'er. The WBX'er
made it about 220K miles here in Phoenix, which is about twice the
life expectancy of an air cooled (although in Canada, that's not
as much of an issue).

Have to agree though that the t-stat, pump, radiator, and 9000
hoses, the WBX'er definitely has more opportunity for leaving you
stuck on the roadside in the middle of BFE :-)

Keith Hughes

> Date:    Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:42:36 -0500
> From:    Ben huot <huotx@VIDEOTRON.CA>
> Subject: Re: Power of a 2.0L Air cooled vs 2.1L???

> 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/
>