Date:         Mon, 14 Aug 2000 05:21:48 -0700
Reply-To:     Mark Rokus <marokus@voyager.net>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mark Rokus <marokus@voyager.net>
Subject:      Re: WBX Nightmares
Comments: To: Mick Kalber <hotlava@interpac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I have had 3 WBX's.  A 1.9 that is still going with over 220,000 miles. A
2.1  with 130,000, and another 2.1 with 262,000.  All three have had leaky
heads at one time and I have done the JB Weld repair for not much more than
the cost of a gasket set ($200) I will gladly take any of these dreadful
motors that anyone cares to give to me.  I love them.  Drive them @ 85 mph
all day and haven't worried a bit.
Mark

> 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.
>