> Can you tell me the source of your statement "...NONE of these engines
> are designed to run at very high rpm's (4500+) for long periods..."?

Ok, let me clarify: they dont run that fast in the vehicles they were
intended for.  For example in a Jetta with an I-4 you would be doing 100+
mph at 4500 rpm.  The only time they realistically hit those rpms in the
vehicles they were designed for is when you're shifting through the lower
gears or going fast as hell.  So I can't say for sure that they were not
designed for running at very high rpms for long periods but they just dont
do that in the applications they were designed for.  I can't imagine why
the engineers would have designed these engines to run very fast for long
periods when they never have to do so in the vehicles they are designed
for?  My guess is that these newer engines are just so darn bulletproof
that they can take the beating though.

Andrew

>
>
>
> on 7/4/04 10:14 am, Andrew Fox wrote:
>
> >> How does one gain an advantage by replacing my 1.9L or 2.0L with a 1.8L?
> >
> > If you want to go fast in a vanagon you need very high rpms.  These
> > smaller engines are CAPABLE of running at higher rpms with more horsepower
> > than the wasserboxer.  However, one of the reasons i would never consider
> > a vanagon engine conversion is that NONE of these engines are designed to
> > run at very high rpm's (4500+) for long periods like they will be when
> > connected to a vanagon transmission and driven on the freeway at 65+ mph.
> > Of special concern are the TDI's.  The diesels are really made for low end
> > torque and the transmissions that use them are geared appropriatly.  I
> > asked overland parts who used to offer a TDI conversion for the vanagon
> > and they confirmed that the TDI in a vanagon with stock transmission is'nt
> > going to make you go any faster.
> >
> > Andrew Fox
>