Do you find your 1.9L or 2.1L WBX adequate power wise?

[Stephan Schmidt]

I have a 1982 Vanagon diesel which I already purchased a 1.8T engine for. Was excited for this swap (and still may go this route), however the simplicity of an modern inline 1.8L engine is really appealing. (100hp, 120 ft lbs of torque approx.)

So my question is this; Do you find the power of your stock 1.9L or 2.1L Wasserboxer adequate?

My particular van is a tintop non-camper which will receive a minimal amount of cupboards and a rear fold down seat. No stove, sink, poptop, etc...

Thanks!

Stephan

[photogdave]

I think a 2.1 will be awesome in your van.
To prove it, I'll trade you mine for your 1.8T!

Seriously though, I had an 82 diesel westy that was converted to a 1.8 NA motor and it was plenty powerful. You'd be fine with that but you would absolutely fly with a 1.8T.
However, if it was me, I'd upgrade to a modern turbo diesel.
_________________
89 Syncro GL Westfalia 2.1 WBX/WBXaustSS

My Westy Movies:
photogdave On Vimeo
photogdave On YouTube

Stop dead photo links! Post your photos to The Samba Gallery!

[chase4food]

OK, I will bite. I found the 2.1 adequate. Prior to buying it in 89, I had a T2 air cool in excellent shape that I had taken cross the Rockies. When test driving the then new 2.1 I was pleasantly surprised with the pep it has that is noticeable compared to the T2. To be fair the T2 was automatic and the 2.1 is manual. Remember this was in 1989 reference.

Fast forward to today, I am still madly in love with the penthouse apartment on wheels. Fortunately I don’t live in Denver. In my trips to California are the rare occasions that I have to negotiate long steep grades and high elevations. Shall I say when it comes to long steep grades at high elevations you don’t negotiate. It is more like begging for mercy. I put it into low gear and take in the scenery while patiently holding the engine at the max torque band. Other than that I found the 2.1 perfect, especially it gets 20 mpg and uses regular for a 4000 lb vehicle.

I always baby the drivetrain. I even kick off the cruise control even at the slightest of grades. By trying to anticipate the grades ahead I will accelerate ahead of the grade to even out the strains on the drivetrain over a longer time span. Never fight headwinds. It still drive like the day I took delivery 26 years ago.

Ignorant is bliss. I never have the luxury of driving a Subby conversion. Even should my complete engine is toasted, the consideration of bone stock easy maintenance would weight heavily in my decision.
_________________
- Vince 飲食玩睡

what Isolde wants Isolde doesn't always get, 4 I know what is best for her - Liebe macht frei

[pnw_ski_vanagoneer]

I have a '91 tin-top Carat (fold out table, rear facing seat, z-bed) so pretty similar to your set up I think.

I find the power the 2.1 generates totally adequate when cruising around the Puget Sound area. I generally have no trouble keeping up with traffic and driving it like a modern car and have actually caught myself going too fast. The only time I ever notice a lack of power is driving it up to go skiing at stevens pass (3000 ft gain over 5 miles or so if I remember right), and even then it's not that bad, I did it a couple weeks ago with a headwind in 3rd gear at 45 mph.

That being said, I'd love to drop in a Gowesty 2.45, a tencent engine, or an SVX engine (I don't have to deal with smog whatsoever), I do sometimes miss the ability to pass other cars on a grade
_________________
"If a problem can be solved there is no use worrying about it. If it can't be solved, worrying will do no good."

91 Tornado Red Carat

[danfromsyr]

I've driven all of the above (incl air cooled 2.0)
I've personally ran in my 1980 ASI camper
#1 air cooled 2.0 (67hp)
#2 1.6TD (~70hp)
#3&4 1.8l Digifant 89-92 naturally aspirated (100hp)
#5 1.8t AEB (150hp)

for you I would vote 1.8l NA digifant motor from an 89-92 golf/jetta/cabriolet. would be plenty to keep a tintop happy and replacing the transmission isn't necessary. the 1.8l likes to rev, get's it best HP after 3500rpm and doesn't mind 5500rpms for long periods of time while returning good (great for a van) fuel economy.
added plus is that nearly ALL of your diesel bits will work to convert the motor to your van. with only a minor cut into the DS frame rail to fit (unless you source a tiico intake)
it's the best bang for the buck.
next wouldbe the 2.0l ABA from a 93-99 golf/jetta/cabrio but you would maybe prefer to change the transmission to an aircooled for the increase in HP (115hp) on that motor.

the 1.8T is anything but simple. it's not hard if it's an AEB but it's still not in the simple camp. it's just more pleasurable to drive.

for my 2nd/backup camper I'm going 2.0 ABA NA motor. simple & sufficient.

[Stephan Schmidt]

[danfromsyr]

ok, and to actually answer the poll question.
the 2.1l will be more than ample for a tin top. and were available for more model years 86-91 vs the 1.9l offered only in 83.5-85

the 2.1 has more power and more readily available parts. a better coolant bleeding system. we easily ran the 2.1l vans to 80mph on the flats. the 1.9l automatic vans were fat dog slow.

I have plans to slip a 2.1l WBX into a Bay tintop bus I have here.
_________________

[Ahwahnee]

In my opinion driving style has a lot to do with whether one finds the original engines adequate.

All my life I have driven small displacement foreign cars so I am accustomed to winding them out, anticipating grades, downshifting well before lugging and passing much more powerful vehicles using the sling shot approach.

If someone has spent a lot of time driving big-engine American iron where all you have to do is romp on it with your right foot to get power, then perhaps the Wasserboxer would seem wimpy.

[Stephan Schmidt]

[djkeev]

Vehicular power "needs" are as varied and opinion based as ones favored engine oil is.

As mentioned already, those who have lived driving small displacement imports don't really struggle with the Vanagon's stock power plant.

I started back in the 60's with a 1960 Beetle. Moved on to Karmann Ghia's, squarebacks, type 2's, and eventually going into big power Datsuns!!

I've had my American Iron V8's and quite frankly I haven't ever been overly impressed. My first was a 1968 Chevy Chevelle 2 Door.

Now Type 2's have always been sluggish in comparison to Type I's and the Vanagon is no exception.
On my journey West last Summer I began to understand the want for greater power with 80 mph speed limits and a ribbon of asphalt as far as you can see.

Here on the Right side of the Mississippi we don't have that open expanse of flat highway. My 2.1 does just fine and I wouldn't upgrade.
If I lived with my Daughter in the High prairies of Montana? Maybe I would consider it but........ For the few times that I'll venture to the Prairie I'll not bother.

Are you happy savoring the experience of the open road, smelling the roses and watching the scenery go by?
Or
Is driving for you a task to be endured and simply a way from point A to point B as fast as you can go?

Is being first, leading the pack, winning, being numero uno important to you and coming in last is for losers?

Only you can answer that..... Proceed accordingly.

Dave
_________________
Stop Dead Photo Links how to post photos

Ghia
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=392473

Vanagon
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6315537#6315537

Beetle
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=482968&highlight=74+super+vert

[CdnVWJunkie]

I have owned/driven 2.1L WBXs in both MV with 95hp and the DJ with 112hp. The difference in power between the MV and DJ is substantial. The DJ isn't a rocket but the seat of the pants feel is very noticeable. These were in Syncro DoKas. I would think a 1.8L NA engine in a tintop would be as Dan said, the most bang for your buck.

[tjet]

Horsepower can be addictive. I drove a stock '71 bay bus daily in Los Angeles for a few years back in the '90's. I got accustomed to it power wise & felt is was sufficient, but when I sold it & bought a '77 bay with a 2.0, I could not believe the power increase. I no longer needed worry about getting caught in that low pressure area when passing a semi truck on the freeway. I think my '87 wasser feels stronger than my '77, but if I lived in a hilly area & drove my van daily, I would get a tencent 2.2 engine.

[Stephan Schmidt]

Thanks for all your input!

[Zeitgeist 13]

I've owned two WBX tintops, and never once did I find their power output insufficient...at all. My only gripe with them, is that in these big heavy boxes, they lack sufficient torque at freeway speeds to add taller gearing in order to drop to the 70 mph @ ~3000 rpms target, which is about where modern vehicles reside at those speeds. This is why the TDI and 1.8t are such attractive powerplants, 'cause they each have torque curves that can support taller freeway gearing that gets close or nails that 70@3k target. If you're going to swap in an engine, it should not only produce more power, but produce that power at the correct torque curves for these big boxes. --> The exclusive realm of the 1.8t and TDI...and a few other six cylinder offbrand gas guzzlers
_________________
Casey--

'89 Bluestar ALH w/12mm Waldo pump, PP764 and GT2052
'01 Weekender --> full camper
y u rune klassik?

[uncommonvw]

I concur about the gearing being the biggest drawback. It's a strange feeling watching the tach read 3800-4000 RPM while cruising on the highway.

I currently have a '89 Wolfsburg and find the power adequate. I've also owned and driven a couple full Westies with the 1.8L inline 4 cylinder. One auto one 4 speed. The power was fine and I'm used to the sounds they make. Still getting used to the WBX noises.

I'm curious why there aren't many 2.0L 16V conversions? 134HP stock. Loves to rev, good torque. Does it have something to do with the intake interfering with the deck lid or the motronic injection?

[Merian]

No, it is not adequate; furthermore, too much of everything is not enough / it takes dynamite to get me up

[Wasted youth]

(1987 Westfalia, auto trans.)

With a family of four, fully loaded with camp gear/supplies, I find that little two liter engine does just fine. Probably something about low end torque. Going up 3% grades with all of that heavy load, I still cruise at 45 MPH at 3,300 RPM. If I wanted to haul ass in a decked out rig, I would go to some dealership and make payments. My title on this bad boy is free and clear, just the way I like it.

Does it get right up to today's 70+ MPH freeway speeds as quick as I like? No, but then the national highway speed limit in 1987 was still 55mph, so it does perform as expected given its model year. I cruise 70 MPH at 4,000 RPM. Don't care about MPG, but I think it is in the low 20's most days. When I bought it, I recall the compression test was 112-116 averaged.

I have considered going the Subaru route, but doubt I will. I have both a spare wasserboxer and matched autobox trans already in the garage.

[vegpedlr]

1985 Weaty 2.2 WBX 4 sp

Mostly adequate. At sea level and in the flatlands, it's fine. Driving through the Sierras, to bad. Put it in 3rd relax nod enjoy the mtn views. I've learned to ease up and not rush because the Westy cannot be rushed. At all. Funny though I've since become even more patient even though I never drove that fast before. I've realized that driving faster doesn't really get you there faster. It's funny watching people bust a nut to get around when turning into traffic to have me right behind or next to them in a few seconds.

I am worried about my summer trips to Colorado. The combo of high elevation and mtns scares me.

[MayorMcCheese]

85 1.9l 4 speed

It's fine until it hits the big hills.

[Ahwahnee]