Ha those were no flames! I know flames! In fact I got that Mustang Ranch award at SDM this year for getting the most ha

I'm no purist, but I settle in the middle. It is easy to hate them because they aren't the greatest.. BUT considering what they are they are very surprising... I'm shocked that these things run well into the high miles before giving it up(which for some reason they tend to do quite suddenly, instead of a slow descent into running abandonment like so many other engines) as far as the vanagons themselves, they are such a great design, and good at so many things... not the best in any one except being above average and surprising across the board(except the original engine and more so engine management)

Go for the supercharged 4 Don!

Jim Akiba

-----Original Message----- From: Don Hanson [mailto:dhanson@GORGE.NET] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:49 PM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post

Whoa! I knew that statement about waterboxers being a 'weak design', when made on the Vangaon list, would bring some heat..I have my flame suit on anyway, just in case. No dissrespect meant to anyone about their motors..Sheesh! Right there in my post, it says "I've never owned one". I have had every other VW imaginable, of the older models. Yah, the waterboxer is probably the most dependable stock motor ever put into a rear engined van...So that makes it...whatever. And that 300 lbs of weight savings statement..that might have been 'talking before I know the facts", but again, I said "I will have to do further research"...I do not know the weight of the 1.8 liter or 2.0 liter I-4 motors, nor do I know the weight of the VW waterboxer motor. I just had the head from my little motor in my hands, and it is quite light... When I decided I needed another economical vehicle with some room, the Vanagon drew my attention, for one thing, because I have owned many VWs of all types. So I began to read everything I could and talk to owners of them and look at the Samba and Ebay, etc etc. Again, I am not saying this myself, nor do I know this from experience, but the preponderant opinion I came across during my research and interviews of owners is that the WBX motor isn't that great...Again, I do not say that myself, because, again, I say I have never owned one so ...But I probably wouldn't go buy one to replace my present motor, going against the advice of others who have had plenty of experience with them. As for the diesel motors..I rode extensively in a friend's Canadian diesel Westy before I even decided I wanted a van. The Westy package decided me on the style, but I did not want a vehicle that was so very very slow. Perhaps his was extra slow, but not from what I hear from other diesel owners..That particular van was well maintained and ran right, but it was dangerous to others, who are not expecting a slow moving vehicular obstruction... Didn't mean to piss off the Vanagon purists..Sorry.. Don Hanson

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Drillock" <mdrillock@cox.net> To: "Don Hanson" <dhanson@GORGE.NET> Cc: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:15 PM Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post

> For all the gripes about them, the 2.1 waterboxer is the strongest and > longest living stock engine ever sold in a VW Van of any rear engine > model in North America. There are individual exceptions but I refer to > them as a group. > > In my 30 years of VW VAN ownership I have owned just about every > original type. As to the VW inline 4 engines, they have a checkered > history in our vans, to say the least. No matter how great they are in > small light cars they don't generally do nearly so well in Vanagons, > IMHO. Again, there are individual exceptions but of the various inline 4 > kits sold over the years there have been plenty of tears shed. > > The various 1.9 diesels may prove exceptions to this but time will tell. > > An engine lighter than a waterboxer by your 300-400 lbs would be found > where, gocarts? > > Mark > > Don Hanson wrote: > > > Hi Jim > > No, not the boxer motor. This may seem like blasphemy, especially here on > > the Vanagon List, but from everything I have read > > (never owned one myself) the waterboxer seems a pretty weak design all > > around. At least that is what I glean from all the rap. > > What I was thinking is an inline 4 vw motor, perhaps even the one I > > already have in my 84, which is an older 8-valve 1.8liter. I will have to > > do some further research, but I've seen mention of aftermarket kits and > > parts available for 1.8L Turbo VW factory motors, and I understand the basic > > pieces of the VW inline four haven't been changed much. If the factory put > > out turbos and GTIs using that platform, it may be feasible to bolt on a > > supercharger without overstressing the motor beyond reason. .........