John,
    I guess you don't remember Steve Mahar? HE had a 2.8 in an
1980 Vanagon. He hownded the list for a vibration problem that
is inherent to most 2.8 motors. GM's "fix" was a dinamicly
balanced crank/flywheel. Rather than fixing the problem! IT took
several years later for them to come up with a smooth running
V6 called the 4.3L.
   It's kind of like this. If you have a bolt that keeps breaking,
GM only thinks one way. Bigger bolt. VW would think, lessen the
stress on the bolt. GM always, IMHO, had a "get a bigger hammer"
mentality. Doesn't work for me!

            Eric                   86-VW4x4
            vw4x4@fyi.net          72-240z
            Pittsburgh, PA USA     1936-Chrysler

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, John Anderson wrote:

> >> Has anyone thought about the engine and trans from a Fiero (V6)
> >
> >     Fiero Motor? That is a GM piece of JUNK! This is a down
> >     right insult to this list, our Vanagons, and everyone around
> >     us!  I wouldn't be caught dead thinking of a thing like this.
> >     Please never mention this again. Your hurting my ears!
>
>
> Damn common and reliable piece of junk.  A guy down Paxtuxent River way in
> MD has been installing GM 2.8-3.1's in AIR COOLED vanagons for years, nicely
> plumbed and I've always meant to ask what radiator (Ford or GM) he uses up
> behind the front grille.  Carbed they require a deck lid height addition, FI
> they go in under stock hood.  I drove a 2.8, it was a blast, moved like
> nothing you could even imagine.  I would no knock this till you've tried it,
> using the 3.1 it would be a real quick van.  Frankly I don't really get the
> "at least its German" arguement.  The VW L4 and L5 really aren't that exotic
> of powerplants, relatively low specific outputs for their sizes, rock solid
> but not that technically exciting.  The 16V was a design abomination.  Yep
> people, Mitsubishi, licensed to Porsche, Honda, even egads Nissan with dual
> plug hemispheric heads in the 80's, those were top of the line 4 cylinders,
> technologically and often reliability wise as well.  Nothing more origional
> about putting an Audi L5 in my '87 van than a GM V6.  The fact that out of
> necessity and common sense VWSA eventually did it years after it left our
> market is interesting and does supply a nice bunch of very expen$ive factory
> parts to make it slightly appealing, but not all that much.  I also note
> that I was suprised at just how far along Kennedy is with Subaru conversion
> pieces having sent for literature, but price is about as appealing as the 5
> cyl.  Anyway, anyone with a whit of common sense would put in the cheapest
> most reliable thing they can, ideally featuring the lowest future rebuild
> and operating costs.  I do not personally know what that is.  The MR2
> suggestion is just bizzare, never common enough to even begin to justify,
> and the early ones not all that reliable.
>
> John
> janderson@iolinc.net
>