Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:49:45 -0400
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: vanagon Digest Huffer motor post
In-Reply-To: <464DFB34.1000900@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I have to agree with Mark, the wbx is underated.. I mean ok, the *design*
itself isn't the greatest, but for what it is, it's amazing that people get
the miles they do out of them relatively trouble free(until the end)...
definitely underestimated, and too easy to hate on because of the average
experience with them... and as compared to the majority of vw inline
4s(which I don't find too impressive either) not sure.. they both have
points... but yeah I did head work for an 8v VW 4 with a neuspeed(eaton)
blower... but it's big money to bolt onto something like the VW 4 but then
again, if you can get them cheap and do the work yourself, you might have a
pretty good conversion. Yeah the weight thing... there's no way it's a
3-400 lbs savings... in fact I'd be surprised if the inline 4 was lighter
than the boxer at all, the subies are heavy for their displacements, but the
wbx is pretty light. Esp for a watercooled horizontal layout.
Jim Akiba
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Drillock [mailto:mdrillock@COX.NET]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 3:15 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
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. .........
| 
