<VV> What's More Trouble-Prone? 140hp or 150/180hp?

[N. Joseph Potts]

I think most are agreed that the basic two-carb Corvair engine is simpler
and easier to keep running as it should than either of the two
high-performance designs, four-carburetor and turbocharged. But which of
these is harder to keep in good fettle? I owned a two-carb long ago
(bullet-proof), and I find my present four-carb example predictably
more-demanding. I've never owned a turbo, and have been cowed by the
complexity and stress of a turbocharging system. Reading VV for a couple of
years has NOT quite answered my question.
     I'd like to hear ONLY from people who've had BOTH, optimally
concurrently and/or in the same year of Corvair.
     Please be reminded that I'm NOT proposing a thread on which engine is
BETTER. Tastes and needs vary, as do the characteristics of these two
high-performance designs. I really only want to hear about how they compare
in terms of amount, expense, and difficulty of maintenance required to keep
them running as designed.

Joe Potts
Miami, Florida USA
1966 Corsa coupe 140hp 4-speed with A/C