Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 08:27:11 -0500
Reply-To: CHRIS STANN <cstann@home.com>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: CHRIS STANN <cstann@home.com>
Subject: Re: WBX Nightmares
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I agree! I am about sick and tired of all the negative comments given the
WBX or the Vanagon in general. Is this the Vanagon list or the Vanagon
Whiner's list? Mine has 130K miles with original heads and no leaks!. You
folks make it sounds like the motor is made from paper mache! By now we
know the heads can leak under certain circumstances, OK? Is that the only
problem you can find? People are calling it unreliable? We need a little
dose of reality. I think if we look at an average life span of the average
engine and look at the average amount of problems, our WBX will fair pretty
well. Here's a little something I typed last night but kept to myself.
Now, you can have it:
I think the leaky head issue has been blown out of proportion (Flamers, I'm
water-cooled). My WBX 1.9l has 130K miles on it and it has the original
heads on it. The gaskets have never been touched. Think of the engine it
replaced - the T4 motor. Those have a bad rep for dropping valve seats.
Yet there are many of those on the road with high miles.
Is it really bad to have to remove the heads at 120 to 150K miles to replace
the gaskets? I don't think so. Just 30 years ago the American V8s seldom
went that far without needing a rebuild - I know there are exceptions. I
think our expectations have
gotten much higher since we think today's motors can go 200K without a
rebuild. It all depends on the maintenance. I've seen many '90 to '93
model vehicles blowing blue smoke out the tailpipe. All engines maintained
properly and used within their original design intentions will last a long
time. How many '85 Chevy Cavaliers still running strong? Ford Escorts?
Heck, Honda Accords? (Honda drivers, I'm flame proof, so don't waste your
typing)
The WBX has a bad reputation for leaky heads. I agree some went very soon
and were in no part a fault of the owner. Quite a few went because of other
factors that, when combined with that particular design, became a recipe
for disaster. Let's see: running hot, not changing the coolant regularly,
not bleeding the cooling system properly, using the wrong type of coolant,
should I go on? However, a properly built, properly maintained engine that
is used within its designed intentions will last much longer than any WBX
skeptics will have you believe. Many folks on this list do nothing but
whine about their cars and they never post any positive news (Hey, I just
drove 3000 miles in a week with no problems!). We would all like to believe
that our engine troubles are strictly caused by 'bad design' and that is
simply not true.
There are trade-offs with every engine choice. Are the folks who converted
their Vanagons going to tell you about the problems? Not likely, since that
would make them look like they made a bad choice! They are likely to sugar
it over and tell the good side! Recently I had a 'convertee' brag about his
inline 4. I went to look at his Vanagon. He had the air-box bungee-corded
to keep it from falling to the ground. The air-intake hose had more duct
tape
on it than Bubba's seat covers. He told me he had to down shift on hills
to keep from slowing down. Down shift? I can't remember the last time I
had to down shift up any hill in my stock '85 and I've gone up some big
hills. He did admit he was still 'working out some bugs.' Bugs? I nearly
offered to lend him my hammer.
So, it breaks down to this:
1. Proper maintenance.
2. Use within designed limits
3. Realistic expectations.
Go wrong on any of these three and you'll pay.
As for any folks who wish to write a mile-long rebuttal full of leaky-head
stories, don't waste your time. I feel your pain, I've heard them, I'm
aware. What we have here is motor with some unique characteristics and
unusual maintenance demands, not a piece of crap destined for the junkyard.
Chris.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mick Kalber <hotlava@interpac.net>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 6:29 AM
Subject: WBX Nightmares
> You know, you guys (and gals) are starting to make me nervous. I've had 3
> WBX Vanagons and never had any serious problems with them. To listen to
you
> all talk, I'm about ready to swap out my WBX for something else...
possibly
> anything else, if I keep listening to your horror stories.
>
> Does anybody have anything nice to say about the WBX?
>
> Mick Kalber
> Tropical Visions Video, Inc.
> 62 Halaulani Place Hilo, Hawaii 96720
> ph. 808-935-5557 fax 808-935-0066
> hotlava@interpac.net
> www.volcanoscapes.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
> Of Andrew Grebneff
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 11:45 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: 5 cyl. Audi in Vanagon - was Engine Conversions
>
>
> >What is so wonderful about the 5 cylinder motors?
>
> The 2.1L 5
> >cylinders don't have this problem, but then a 2.0L I4 will have more
power
> >and is easier to install.
>
>
> I seem to remember reading in English magazines that the 2.1 five is an
> avoid-at-all-costs engine...apparently it's really unreliable. Sort of the
> Audi equivalent of the WBX.
