(1600cc in'83 boys and girls),
>
>Not true, my 83 GTI(and everybody elses) had a 1.8 and I  believe they were
>then using a 1.7 in the regular Rabbits, Jettas, and Quantums. The 1.8 has
>greater HP and equal torque.

David wrote:
>Not true!!!  (Almost) Equal hp yes, certainly NOT torque.  The >2.1L
>wasserboxer has 95hp and 117ft/lb torque and the 1.8L JH >engine found in
>the Rabbit GTI has 90hp and 105ft/lb torque.  Still I'd rather >use a 1.8L
>Rabbit GTI engine than a wasserboxer - hence my engine swap!

       Yes, I know. I was only comparing it to the 1.9 which is the engine
produced in 1983(.5), the year in question. I knew this response was coming,
though, after I sent the original message.
       As far as using the 1.8, I fully agree. Between my father and I, we
have owned/own 5 Rabbit GTI's. My current one is almost at the 200K mark.
We've never experienced any sort of engine related problem with any them.
(knocking on wood) Now that I think about it, we've never had any sort of
electronic, computer, or fuel injection problems either. (again) That is why
we've had so many.
       We also own an 83 with a 16v conversion and my father road races one.
For the first three years that my father raced, he used a completely stock
engine that already had 140K on it.  The only modification was an oil cooler.
When he decided to have a motor built to class specs he did compression and
leakdown tests on the this engine and it was fine! Try that with a
wasserboxer, if it even makes it to 140K.
       I wouldn't mind throwing a 1.8 in my bus since I have a couple sitting
in the garage, but my wasserboxer was replaced only 20K ago, so I figure I
should be able to get some serious miles out of it before it comes to that.
But when the time comes....

Tim        SKYSCI@aol.com
Princeton, NJ
85 Westy Wolfsburg
84 GTI