TheSamba.com :: View topic

Fri May 12, 2006 5:28 am

Can a person swap a 2.1L long block into the 1.9L's place??
Would my 1.9L intake,exaust,dizzy,sensors, and so on fit on the 2.1.

Fri May 12, 2006 5:37 am

yes to all

Fri May 12, 2006 5:56 am

Si senor....

Fri May 12, 2006 8:23 am

Mr Maz wrote: Can a person swap a 2.1L long block into the 1.9L's place??
Would my 1.9L intake,exaust,dizzy,sensors, and so on fit on the 2.1.

Search the samba... I and others have written about the details involved (there aren't too many). And the friendly google search will turn up the classic URL:
www.oldvolkshome.com/19to21.htm

Enjoy (but there isn't anything wrong with a 1.9, btw)

-Damon

Fri May 12, 2006 9:11 am

wbx wrote: Enjoy (but there isn't anything wrong with a 1.9, btw)
Yes there is. 82 hp is too wimpy for today's traffic. I feel like my 1.9 powered automatic Westy can hardly get out of its own way, especially up hills. The 1.9 is a pathetic excuse for a "power" plant. BUT, BUT, BUT compared to a 2.1 it is more reliable. The bottom end lasts and lasts. I overheated mine, at least, twice and it runs just like it should. Damn.....

Fri May 12, 2006 11:31 am

r39o wrote:
Yes there is. 82 hp is too wimpy for today's traffic. I feel like my 1.9 powered automatic Westy can hardly get out of its own way, especially up hills. The 1.9 is a pathetic excuse for a "power" plant. BUT, BUT, BUT compared to a 2.1 it is more reliable. The bottom end lasts and lasts. I overheated mine, at least, twice and it runs just like it should. Damn.....

Well, i guess it depends on where you live... in so cal (or is it lo cal?), i can imagine you are right. But mine has always lived from San Francisco north (including alaska), and while pokey, always did the job. Personally, i can't say i was ever too bothered by the 82hp. The bigger engine was more of an engineering challenge for me than anything else. If i were to do it again, i'd throw a turbo on that 1.9 and call it good. :D

-Damon

Fri May 12, 2006 8:13 pm

The extra 8hp you get with a 2.1 not that huge.

r39o-your 1.9 automatic is the slowest watercooler, no? Gearing, weight?

I chased a 2.1 syncro(not camper) up a mountain in my 1.9 4spd camper. The syncro pulled away a little on the climb. I figure the added weight of the syncro didn't help, but my van was loaded with tools and camping gear. Coming down the winding single lane the syncro could hug the right turns closer.

With premium gas, good ingition, and synthetic oils the 1.9 does very well. BUT NOT AT $4/GAL.

Fri May 12, 2006 8:15 pm

8419p27 wrote: The extra 8hp you get with a 2.1 not that huge.

r39o-your 1.9 automatic is the slowest watercooler, no? Gearing, weight?

I chased a 2.1 syncro(not camper) up a mountain in my 1.9 4spd camper. The syncro pulled away a little on the climb. I figure the added weight of the syncro didn't help, but my van was loaded with tools and camping gear. Coming down the winding single lane the syncro could hug the right turns closer.

With premium gas, good ingition, and synthetic oils the 1.9 does very well. BUT NOT AT $4/GAL.

Big W's watercooler runner is much faster than my diesel Vanagon....my air cooled automatic is not much faster....cept down hills

Fri May 12, 2006 8:23 pm

weinerwagon--aren't you putting a CAT motor in one of em. How much horse will that be? Gears?

Fri May 12, 2006 8:30 pm

8419p27 wrote: weinerwagon--aren't you putting a CAT motor in one of em. How much horse will that be? Gears?

working on it, engine is installed, trans is in two pieces, waiting for the final drive to arrive....

then its PARTY TIME.....final pictures will be on PAY PER VIEW....LOL,
drive test will be

first born
sware on Reagans grave, and Nixons....
and
(thinking...of #3)

Fri May 12, 2006 8:56 pm

Tattoo a Vanagon on your chest

Fri May 12, 2006 9:31 pm

Yep, I think a 1.9 wbx Westy automatic is the slowest watercooled van. Yes, siree.

The air cooled automatic Westy is even slower.

2L Air Cooled 68HP
1.9L wbx 82HP (US Digijet)
2.1L wbx 90HP (US Digifant)

So it goes....

Fri May 12, 2006 11:50 pm

diesel 4spd man 4th gear 0.85, transaxle 5.43 or 5.86
aircooled 3spd automatic 3rd gear 1.00, transaxle 4.09
aircooled 4spd man 4th 0.852, trans 4.57
watercooled 3spd auto 3rd 1.00, trans 3.74(1.9) 4.09(2.1)
watercooled 4spd man 4th 0.85, trans 4.57/4.86/4.83

Torque converter on automatic is good for climbing but has lower shift points and lower top end speed. Should be driven in 2nd up to 55mph. Don't know how true it is.

I know the 4spd on the other hand is always between gears when climbing but can help slow the vehicle down when descending, can reach 90-95mph on the flats.

Sat May 13, 2006 10:33 am

My auto seems to be fine. BUT, it is in top gear by 25 or 30 always. It does down shift on some steep hills. But, what the heck. If I want speed I take my 82 Caddy GTI or my 2L 79 hot rod GTI - Woo Hoo! But, we just rebuilt my 98 NB TDi with new bigger nozzles, new head, rebuilt turbo, etc....so maybe that will be fun again...

Sat May 13, 2006 10:43 am

I got a pair of in line skates that goes up hill faster than my stock diesel :o

the 411 was really bi anyway, that's why they called it a Variant....LOL! :cry:

Sat May 13, 2006 12:29 pm

Theres the point where the vanagon stops accelerating going uphill altogether.

Sat May 13, 2006 12:38 pm

8419p27 wrote: Theres the point where the vanagon stops accelerating going uphill altogether.

usually once the fuel pump quits, or the key gets turned off, or the size 13 Nike's get removed from the pedal....
:wink:

Sat May 13, 2006 10:49 pm

8419p27 wrote: Theres the point where the vanagon stops accelerating going uphill altogether.
Sometimes they get slower and slower and, eventully, you are just crawling up the hill.....

Sun May 14, 2006 12:13 am

Im all for going downhill.
http://penut.net/images/links/donkey.jpg