Dear David (and Kyle too for that matter),

Could you elaborate? How much different in HP/Torque are the Wasserboxer vs. the 2.0L? Do  HP/Torque curves exist for comparison? I would be willing to create such a comparison graph and post it to the web if I could get my hands on the data.

Cheers,

MJS

At 05:57 PM 9/23/98 -0700, David Marshall wrote:

>At 00:06 9/23/98 EDT, KENWILFY@AOL.COM wrote:

>>4.  In-line 4 gas conversion

>>Pros: Good fuel mileage, very reliable power plant, very available motor,

>>parts are cheap and easy to pick up, VW powerplant again makes servicing

>not a

>>problem at the dealer, who is very familiar with this motor.  Horsepower is

>>same or more than waterboxer (depending on which motor you choose- 1.6l,

>1.8l,

>>2.0l).  This conversion can be done using a diesel Vanagon and has been done

>>more than any other conversion.  It has proven to be a good and reliable

>>choice.

>>Cons: Not as much power as some of the other conversions (Chevy or Subaru),

>>not as much low end torque as a normal Waterboxer.

>

>The 2.0L has more power and more torque than the wasserleaker and it comes

>on lower in the RPM range too.  Another pro is modifications are cheap and

>plentiful too...

>

>

>-- David Marshall  Quesnel BC Canada  mailto:david@volkswagen.org --

>--       73 Audi 100LS, 78 1.8L VW Rabbit, 80 2.0L VW Caddy       --

>-- 87 Audi 5KQ, 85 1.8L VW Cabrio, 88 2.0L VW Syncro Double Cab   --

>--         Volkswagen Homepage http://www.volkswagen.org          --

>

<bold>Michael J. Sullivan

</bold><italic>Director of Catalog Design

Open Market, Inc.

</italic>

*************************************

  work: http://www.openmarket.com

  play: http://www.hsdesign.com

*************************************