Date:         Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:59:46 +0100
Reply-To:     Per Lindgren <lindgre@ONLINE.NO>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Per Lindgren <lindgre@ONLINE.NO>
Subject:      Re: Some points on why the Wasserboxer was the way for me...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Robert Lilley wrote:

> I was thinking about VWs use of hoses and why are the hoses on the outside of
> the engine rather than built into the engine...Could it be that it is cheaper
> to replace a hose on the outside rather than remove an inline head to replace
> a blown gasket... just a thought...

Also remember the fact that the wbx is a converted type1 engine, and it was
probably much easier for VW to place a lot of hoses on the outside of the engine,
than built into the engine.

As many others, I have also wondered why VW stuck with the wbx, when they already
had the I-4 conversion ready in the form of the diesel. Well, consider the fact
that in 1983, the largest engine they had was 1,6, except for the GTI engine in
the - well - GTI. 1983 was the first year for the 1,8. They just couldn't stick
in the 2,0 as we can these days. So, when they used a lot of dough redeveloping
the boxer, they had to stick with it to pay it off.

PerL
87 Syncro 112i