Date:         Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:22:50 -0700
Reply-To:     Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Robert Fisher <refisher@MCHSI.COM>
Subject:      Re: WBX motor rather than ....
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

In NA perhaps... I haven't been to Europe yet, but everything I've seen and
heard so far gives an impression of crowded, narrow streets with lots of
low-to-medium speed, fits-and-starts traffic and relatively short open
distances (in average/common usage, anyway) between more of the same. The
Vanagon as-is, with its relatively quick takeoff, maneuverability and
massive interior room would seem ideal for those conditions. You could argue
that you would've gotten the same thing out of the I-4s- I don't know, I've
never driven one in a Vanagon.

Maybe somebody that has driven one extensively 'over there' could comment to
that.

It if really was a decision made to appease the union, then the political
objective became more important (or at least became an acceptable
compromise) to the decision makers than the 'common sense' objective we so
clearly see in hindsight.

However I agree that the other engines should have at least been offered as
options, if only in NA. On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that people
would have upgraded from even those engines by now if they had been in
common use, so in the practical sense we would still be where we are now.
It's interesting that South Africa, which I would think would be something
of a combination of the two environments, got equipment well suited to NA
use, but it was never offered here.

Cya,
Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeitgeist" <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: WBX motor rather than ....


> 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