Club 80-90 Forums

Hi Guys
Now the engine has gone off for rebuild (incl engine case replacement).

The garage dropping / putting back in the engine (a specialist vw engine rebuilder is doing the rebuild) have suggested maybe going back to a 1.9 petrol (instead of the 2.1 petrol), as I am running the pierburg carb, not the fuel injection, therefore probably not getting the benefit of the 2.1 engine & will be easier to get 1.9 parts in the future.

A) Is that right - am I losing out on all the extra power of the 2.1 by running the carb ?

B) Would it make more sense to go back to the 1.9 (that's what was in there originally) - an early cooling system - my van is a late 1983 panel van - factory high top).

I know the later 1.9 engine cases are the same as the 2.1 just different pistons effectively (ok & a few other bits & bobs) (& the rebuilder does have a 2.1 case he can use for the rebuild - con rod went through the block on the old 2.1 engine).

C) Will the 2.1 running a carb be less stressful on the engine than a 1.9 running the same carb (I had the carb refurbished at Bromsgrove a few years back , and running a stainless exhaust.

I'm looking for long term reliability rather than outright speed - but the less stress put on the engine the better in my mind.

Probably horses for courses, but want to make a well informed decision if I can

So pleased I am part of this forum, as makes life so much easier having people with informed opinions / experience on hand

Deffo stick with the 2.1 even on carb it will be much more powerful, reliability is same

Think about it logically, a larger engine is going to be more stressful?

Surely the other way round, I've run a 2.1 on carb and Lpg for about 8 years now without a problem, I've actually just bought another 2.1 as a spare which I'll also be running on the carb.

I'm sure not using the injection system will lose a few horses but the increased torque is well worth it.

It's the stroke that increases the capacity not piston size by the way.

I don't know why a specialist would even suggest going down to 1.9 and lose all that HP. 2.1 all the way and I would have done it but the "specialist" that did my engine told me that a 2.1 couldn't be run with a carb (after having told me he'd fitted a 2.1 by mistake and I'd said I'd keep it).
Definitely go for the 2.1 Got a feeling MPG is better as well

methinks he is talking crap,
all the bolt on bits are interchangeable between the 2.1 and the 1.9 anyway, so no logic in his point....
2.1 is no more unreliable than a 1.9, there is no difference in mpg, nor parts availiblity ( as all the carb stuff is 1.9 anyway )
junking the poor injection is the improvement the 2.1 needed

This is what I thought - will be sticking with 2.1 (on carb

hightop ratty wrote: The garage dropping / putting back in the engine (a specialist vw engine rebuilder is doing the rebuild) have suggested maybe going back to a 1.9 petrol

If I'm not mistaken its the garage suggesting going back to a 1.9 not the engine rebuilder?

If that's the case they probably don't really know much about the 1.9/2.1 water cooled boxer engines. Historically you would find if you re-bored a traditional block to give you a large capacity increase this means much less material between the bores (or in an alloy block could mean thinner liners). Some would say this can put more stress on head gaskets and lead to premature failure whiles others insist this is not the case.

Anyway, this all goes out the window when it comes to the 1.9/2.1 debate, and TBH the garage probably don't even realise the 2.1 was a factory fit option!
Definitely stick with the 2.1, I know if I ever have to go down the rebuild route that's what I'll be doing, I may even consider a 2.1 cranks as a base and go slightly bigger to a 2.2 although I'm not convinced the increase in cost would be worthwhile.

Call me Mr Nasty if you like but. You sure they haven't got lumbered with a 1.9 and trying to unload it on you?
Someone had to say it
CS

The van used to be 1.9 originally (& to be fair can't say i've noticed any more power with the 2.1) - original was knackered when I bought it (corroded studs - & previous owner had bodged to fix, hence changing it 8 - 9 years ago).

I'd prefer the 2.1 personally - bigger = better (it's a man thing lol

I think the vw specialist (taking engine out & putting new one in) just thought as I was running the pierburg & no fuel injection, therefore the full benefits of the 2.1 weren't being used (& parts would be easier to source in the future - not sure that one sits with me either - as running the carb - everything else is pretty much 1.9 stuff anyway, & the water pump etc etc will be putting 1.9 in not 2.1, so not like I need to change any of the water pipes etc)

The vw specialist has a subaru conversion in his van (& has done loads of T25's) - I'm reliably told he knows his stuff (by fellow long term vee dubbers) - I think he was trying to be helpful as he was a bit confused when there wasn't any injection stuff - I think he was asking also in case I thought it was a 2.1, but really had a 1.9.

A sorted 1.9 is fine on the flat I do 70-75 in mine and at times it could do more. Then it hits a long incline and I pine for a 2.1

I'm going to start doing more 55 - 65 & use more A roads again (I had been doing more 60 - 75 on motorway going to vw shows last summer which probably didn't helps its demise or fuel consumption).

An empty Tin top is about 1400 KG a camper is about 500kg heavier with kit in, thats alot more weight.
A fresh WBX has 13 bar of compression a tired one may have 8 bar that makes a big difference to power and thats before we consider things like condition of carb and ignition system.

These two factors will make a great difference in performace particularly up hills.

Mine used to go like stink in all fairness - hence letting the old girl do her stuff (it's stopping / handling abilities scared me more (even though she's lowered) - even though both are in good nick !)

Never had the compressions tested etc to know - didn't change the oil very often as push rod / bottom of oil filler pipe leaked so topped up regularly (& only ever did about 3k miles a year).

What are the actual (approx) gains in power & torque that are possible using the 2.1 (on pierburg carb) as opposed to 1.9 (on pierburg carb) I know this was asked early on in the post - i've re-read all 24 pages of another thread in the last hour (but it looks like better low end grunt, with more power going up hills, & fewer gear changes to do so - which I guess is reason enough).

The reason I ask is my engine rebuilder doesn't have a 2.1 case that he can rebuild after all (he thought he did, but it came with a job lot of other engines etc, but after measuring up has passed on the sad news tonight that it is in fact a 1.9 , he has loads of 1.9 stuff but no 2.1

My original 2.1 is totally scrap, & none of the major internal parts are going to be salvageable which makes it worse - he thinks it simply ran out of oil (I have a feeling the drippy pushrod seal either gave up or the semi synth was simply too thin when warmed up - someone had already rung the fire brigade to say we were on fire before the huge white smoke billowed from the engine & air vents), & went bang , so I sit hear tonight feeling pretty dejected as the only option from this (trusted & recommended by many of my fellow south wales vee dubbers - so I have no doubt that he is the local man to use & knows his stuff), is to go down the 1.9 route as that's all he's got to rebuild which wasn't where I wanted to go really.

My van was a late 1983 (registered 1.1.1984) 1.9 to start with (factory high top), but this engine went bang one News Years day (ironically the same day as registration - circa 25 yrs later) about 9 years ago (after about 3 years ownership) - this engine wasn't great (mainly due to the carb needing doing / and a pretty ratty exhaust), & was on its way out when I bought it with rusty studs - it was my baptism into the vee dub world with this van (I've been brought up on moggy 1000's & BMC cars) - so the flat 4 engine was a mystery to me.

My mate who used to run a vee dub garage had a 2.1 reconditioned (at some time) engine available - so this went in to keep her running, and has served well for the last 9 years or so (doing circa 3k miles a year).
He refitted the pierburg carb (since reconditioned via bromyard VW - run much better since, & new stainless exhaust made it even better

The van was used as a family holiday camper & weekends / & when ever a large van was required for general carrying stuff), and didn't see much use on motorways (the trouble & strife hates motorways on a good day). I can't say that i noticed any real difference in power between the 1.9 & 2.1 (but the 1.9 was so long ago - I couldn't really say).

Late last summer we started a new business (about now in fact !), so were up & down the motorway & fast A roads going to VW events, pushing it just a bit harder than previously I must admit - as some shows were up to 4 hours away & we needed to set up & strike the shop each weekend - with a toddler in tow). To cut a long story short, without warning a conrod went through the block (looks identical to the wiki feed on here) on our way to Busfest last year (1/4 of an hour after leaving home up the motorway), so i'm guessing the extra demands (garage put semi synth oil in at service), and low oil pressure due to thinning at speed probably was to blame for loosing her oil & bang.
We've since bought a (slightly) more modern diesel van to cope with the weekend shows & intend to keep ethel for more relaxing holidays & family time (using proper old A roads again, & more leisurely on the motorway if we have to).

Are there any other 2.1 engines out there (either rebuilt or with known history), that I might be able to buy, rather than go down the 1.9 route (which will work fine i'm sure, but will always have the nagging doubt I should have gone for the big one

The late 1.9 case is the same as the 2.1 case
all the internals can still be bought new or used.

or Stick a 1.9 in it and get going again, when a 2.1 comes up then swap it.