Ben is right, the turbo is the way to go... save the extra 100 lbs of the 6,
it'll be way quieter, and more efficient with the combined cycle. The only
reason to go for the 6 would be uniqueness unless it is harder to turbo the
subie than I'm guessing.

Jim Akiba

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Achter [mailto:hansachter@HOTMAIL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 7:42 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: 102mph

Easy there, Ben!  Let's make sure you're still in one piece after a year.
No turbo, we can do six-cylinder!
-Hans

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benny boy" <huotb@VIDEOTRON.CA>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: 102mph

> The question is not the speed, but how fast this one is to reach, i said
> 15
> to 20 seconde to be polite :-) it was more like 10sec, and i was more at
> 60mph. Of course, any in shape VW wasser will do it... down hill, wind in
> the back and after 30 minutes :-)
>
> :-)
>
> Anyway, now i need a Turbo, next year...
>
> Ben
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:32:52 -0500, Jeff Lincoln <magikvw@GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>>Yeah - I had my 85' 1.9 up to 95mph (actually more realistically 90mph) -
>>I
>>will never ever ever do that again.
>>
>>On 5/16/07, Todd Last <rubatoguy@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> That is only 12mph more than I was able to do in my stock 2.1 Westy  :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone for a "Vanagons at Bonneville"  event?
>>>
>>> Todd
>>> '88 Westy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>