Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 21:50:52 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: WBX motor rather than ....
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original
lol. I was just reading about the newest Carrera 911 and 911 S.
direct fuel injection - very high tech........
and .......of all amazing things, one piece cylinder heads !
Like that was a breakthrough or something.
and I will say for sure the waterboxer is ( hastily it appears ) an
adaptered air-cooled design to water cooling.
Also...........Porsche's first waterboxer ............the engine they
introduced with the Boxster car..........
a 4 valves per cylinder design............I'm sure others know more
details........but those engines have a fundamental and semi-unsolvable
water in the oil problem, or perhaps oil in the water..........one or the
other, or both perhaps.
my thoughts on why VW stayed with the waterboxer for the Vanagon from 83 to
91.......
for one thing.............the orginal concept and layout for the VW bus is
'oppossed 4 cylinder aluminum rear engine'..........
so sticking with that was expected ( one does wonder why they just didn't do
inline 4 gassers .........but I suspect they wanted to retain the design
philosophy for their gasoline rear engine vans..................or they just
had tons of aluminum to use up for engine gases,
Anyway...........that got them from air-cooled to water cooled.
Then they improved the 1.9 with the 2.1 waterboxer in 86.
Then after a few years of that , with crash requirements or standards
getting higher..........
the end of era of the rear engine van was apporaching .....( after
all.......a fresh sheeet of paper, with front engine, and aerodynamics in
the equation more, was needed next ) .................at that point it just
becomes a matter of having the same vehicle every year until the new one is
ready..............and ............the cost of production per unit gets
lower the more they make of them from all the tooling and factory stuff
they've invested in to make it ..........
so they just stamp 'em out until it's time to bring out the new car, and no
sense making huge ( expensive ) changes the last few years if you know
you're just going to drop the model anyway.
But they sure dropped to ball going to the Eurovan. Havn't recovered yet
in the North American market for a VW van.
And they 'had it'
............they had it with a 'sporty not-quite-truck' van with good
ground clearnce, and AWD available - the Vanagon.
The least old vanagons are apporaching 20 years of age.......and
yet with upgrades that us all Vangon nuts do to them, or even bone stock and
well cared for and maintiained........ ...........there is just tons of life
and usefullness left in Vanagons. They're iconic even.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Hanson" <dhanson@GORGE.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:18 PM
Subject: WBX motor rather than ....
> So, I wonder which German company copied which? When Porsche changed to
> water cooled they built a motor kinda like VWs..in that it's really an air
> cooled 911 cobbled up with water jackets around. Is not the WBX similar
> (or
> vica/versa) with the WBX being an air cooled with water?
> Except Porsche gave up after a few years of building what they called the
> 993 (the 'transition' motor) and built a whole new package, the
> 996..re-designed with only the opposed six configuration remaining from
> the
> air cooled one.
> Wonder why VW stuck with the WBX for so long when it has weak spots?
> Interesting though that those two companies, who are almost affiliated,
> did such similar transition from AC to water..
> Don Hanson
>
> PS...You Soobie guys...they at Porsche get about 475 rwhp from a normally
> aspirated engine suitable to go to Le Mans and run flat out for 24hrs..Try
> that with a turboless svx.
|