Date:         Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:48:45 EDT
Reply-To:     Wolfvan88@aol.com
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Lilley <Wolfvan88@aol.com>
Subject:      Re: Gotta Be a Wasserboxer!
Comments: To: pdooley@gte.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Pat,

<<<
Really, where is the WB advantage?
Look, even VW gave up on the WB.  The SA Vanagons don't use them. >>>

It is not because of the design it is simply due to economics.

 VW had a 3.2 flat 6 Wasserboxer ready to go in the Vanagon but was scraped
because the Eurovan came out, you can get a 3.2L F6 today from Germany.

 The VW shifted to the pressure of the car market demands for front wheel
drive thus changing the engine to an inline. It is cheaper for VW to use the
inline four engine, because it is cheaper to make AND ALMOST all their cars
use them...

VWs move to the inline in the SA Vanagons is a cost saving move...

With a few proven T1 (the WBX is based of the T1 engine) changes the engine
can make more power and have DOUBLE the engine life.
The average life is @150,000 miles new engine @300,000.


<<<My conversion started 2 years ago and is still not done.  I have never even
driven a vanagon because of this.>>>

Rebuilding the engine takes about two months (if you send out for machine
work and do it your self)
If you had simply fixed to WBX problematic areas you could have been driving
around in and enjoying the Vanagon ... rather than looking at it.