Re[3]: 4-cylinder engine

[dad@roadnet.ups.com (Dahl, Dave)]

>That 4 cyl engine is a winner.  Cheaper to drive & cheaper to keep & imho a
>better match for the smaller car than the 5 cyl.  BTW, the timing belt
>wasn't an issue for the 1.8l but you're looking at a 2.0l which is no
>longer a free wheeling engine when the belt breaks.  I've seen 3 timing
>belt tensioners check out at about 100k. One of them took the belt & some
>valves at the same time.  I think you'll like it.

I have both the 1.8L 4 ('88 VW Fox) and the 2.2L 5 ('87 Quantum Syncro), and I
wouldn't want the 4 in a car the size of an Audi.  My Quantum (which is
essentially a 4000Q) is adequately powered with the 115-hp 5, nothing more.  My
Fox won't get out of its own way.  I agree that the 4 is a great engine, but
only for a light car.  I used to have a '77 Scirocco with the 1.6L 4, and it was
quick -- but the car only weighed 1800 lbs.  I really have to make my Fox scream
to get any sort of acceleration out of it, which is a pain without a tach!  (I
keep hitting the rev limiter in 1st and 2nd -- at least I hope that's what is
happening -- someone please tell me if this engine doesn't have a rev
limiter!!!)

As far as operational costs, parts for the 4 are probably cheaper than those for
the 5, but so far I haven't needed any for either one (with 115K on the Quantum
and 70K on the Fox).  And the 5 does take a little more fuel (but it's driving
all 4 wheels, too).

- Dave Dahl  (dad@roadnet.ups.com)
- '87 VW Quantum Syncro
- '88 VW Fox GL