Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:49:49 -0700
Reply-To:     Zeitgeist <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Zeitgeist <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: WBX motor rather than ....
In-Reply-To:  <000701c8f424$8d056480$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Porsche now owns a controlling stake in VW.

While I'm not nearly as much of a WBX basher as some of the silly whiners
around here, I do think they should've saved the millions spent in R&D and
just culled from the VAG parts bin and slipped in an inline (Gas) Audi 2.3
fiver and VW 1.8/2.0, and (Diesel) Audi 2.0 fiver and VW 1.6/1.9 and called
it good.  No need to piddle around with the ancient pushrod stuff linking
back to the thirties.  That said, the WBX is a surprisingly robust engine
despite itself, but there was still no valid rationale for its very
existence.

On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Don Hanson <dhanson@gorge.net> wrote:

>  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.
>



--
Casey
'87 300TD
'94 100CSQ Avant
'89 Bluestar
The People's Republic of Cascadia