A quick poll? How many people have had a rod on a 2.1 come thru the case?
One for me.

Rob
becida@comcast.net

At  3/21/2009 02:07 PM, Chris S wrote:
>You are correct.  To add a little more info, the 2.1l bolts are of
>stretch variety.  This means they stretch under torque during the
>initial install.  The trouble is that after many miles, a widely
>disputed 125k - 150k miles,  they stretch some more causing a drop in
>oil pressure.  It is good to monitor oil pressure in your 2.1l WBX.
>
>Now,  some people report having put over 200K miles on their 2.1
>bottom end without a rebuilt.
>
>On 3/21/09, John Rodgers <inua@charter.net> wrote:
> > Zoltan wrote:
> >> I think, Boston Bob told me once, that he is using non-stretch bolts from
> >> the 1.9 engine in the 2.1, instead of the original stretch bolt.  Any of
> >> you know this?
> >> Zoltan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > While the matter of these bolts has been brought up, it's worthy of
> > mention of the original problem with them. Apparently the original 2.1L
> > rod bolts were subject to elongating and  allowing the rod ends to go
> > oval, thus losing oil pressure resulting in a burned bearing followed by
> > the engine seizing,  and subsequently a thrown rod. Changing to the 1.9L
> > bolt apparently put an end to that nonsense. I have not heard of using
> > the diesel bolt for that purpose, but perhaps so.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Rodgers
> > 88 GL Driver
> >