My choice is a 1986 1.8 VW inline 4. Why? Because if you look at the
HP output, it is about the same torque as the 2.1, but if you want more
power you can wind it up. This means going the same speeds as I always
go, the motor going the same RPM of course, a 1.8 will suck less gas
then a 2.1. Gas milage should improve. Lastly this motor is
indestructable (sp). I have seen many still running fine with over
250,000 mile.

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

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Rico Sapolich wrote:

> Regarding the Subaru conversion, KENWILFY writes:
>
> << He says that he would like to re-gear the tranny a little though as the
> engine makes it's power in the higher rpm range and the van tranny is not
> geared quite right.
>  >>
>
> This is one thing about which I questioned Kennedy Engr.  They replied,"The
> 95 and earlier Subaru engines are happy at the high RPM required by the
> Vanagon gearing.  Peak torque is up where you need it at 4400RPM."  The
> engine may be happy, but I wouldn't be happy.  I want the engine to pull the
> hardest right in the middle of that green area on the tach, about 3000RPM.
> If you look at the 2.1L, it torques out @ 3200RPM and the 1.9L @ 2800RPM.  I
> certainly do not want an engine that I have to wind up tighter than a ferret
> on crack for use everyday.  While VW may have gotten the torque profile
> right, they just didn't provide enough of it.  I guess what I want is what
> Smokey Yunick has been saying everybody cruising the highways and byways
> really needs: a high torque, low-speed power plant.
>
> So, what can I stuff into the ass end of my Syncro that retains the skid pan,
> doesn't weigh too much, isn't too long (height doesn't scare me). and puts
> out about 135 ft-lbs @2800-3200RPM?  Oh, I almost forgot; does not have wet
> liners nor external coolant bypass lines.
>
> Richard
>