Is a 2.0l motor from an 81 or 82 vanagon essentially the same as our 2.0l motors? I have a chance to get a longblock cheap.

yes..... and no.

oil dipstick is different
L-jet not D-jet
oil fill is different
exhaust ports are square, not round

others will list more...

Pistons are diff I believe.

I have bus heads that have oval ports instead of the square ones.

The bus pistons are VERY dished. Low compression.

Heads have smaller valves than the 2.0 914 engine, four stud intake manifold instead of the 2.0L 914's three stud......


b

79-83 bus heads are called vanagon heads b/c of the square ports

72 (?) -78 bus heads do have round (oval) ports

So would it be worthwhile to purchase as a core motor to build a 1911 from? Or could I put it in the teener so I can still drive it while I build my current 1.8?

i'd do plan A....

that 1911 is supposed to be torquey...

b

its a short stroke.... tends to be more of a rev'r compared to a 2l

its a big bore 1.8 short storke.....

wasn't there a thread a while back about hig rev engines

There are several differant 2.0 Bus engines Some have exaust ports exactly like the 2.0 914 heads others have a squair port that takes a regular gasket . All of the Bus heads have the Spark plug hole located on the upper side of the head (if your looking at the engine from the top they stick up ) instead of next to were the manifolds bolt to the intake port on the 914 heads . This changes the configuration of the " Squish Band " in the combustion chamber .914 heads have 3 intake studs busses have 4 . If you want or need more info contact me at limerickenigma@yahoo.com and I'll tell ya anything I know buut them ! Name is mark , C ya

The different oil filler and dipstick location means you've got some machining to do to use the crankcase in a 914. Not worth it IMHO.

At least you get the 71mm crank and the rods to go with it, but that's about it....

--DD