Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:20:49 -0800
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: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Having driven each for over 100,000 miles in all kinds of
conditions..........I can say there is no discernable handling different
between an inliine four engine vanagon and a waterboxer engine vanagon.
And if there was a handling penalty ............having raced cars and
motorcycles, I think I would notice it........believe me.
I can't really say the tilted over inline 4 has a higher center of gravity
either........
perhaps an inch or two ...........but not enough to matter really.
I do like the labor unions theory ..............keeping all the air-cooled
familiar workers working........
and just the general desire to keep with the original concept.........rear
engine oppossed aluminum four.
Perhaps it's the power of labor unions that we can blame for these goofy
waterboxer engines.
But think of all the jillions of waterboxer headgasket jobs that wouldn't
have be gotten done !
Has to be a million of those jobs since the waterboxer engine first came out
in 1983.
I'm looking forward to getting my hands on my 'new' ........16 valve, inline
four, 1.8, with CIS-E fuel injection engine ............123 hp at 5,800 rpm
.........I want that in my personal vanagon when I find the time. And there
sure won't be any handling penalty, not with even a modicum of
suspension/wheels/tires upgrades.
Scott
www.turbovans.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "sam mccarthy" <sfcompost@YAHOO.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
I am sure the reason VW didn't put gas inline-fours in the van was that they
did not want to upset the "amazing handling" of the Vanagon by raising the
center of gravity over that achieved using the flat four. They compromised
with the diesel due to its "slightly lower" power output and, how to put it,
"more relaxed cruising attitude".
Who could blame them??
Sam M
--------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:02:09 -0800
From: Zeitgeist <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
I think the point being that VW should've used the introduction of the T3
to
turn over a new leaf and leave the flat engine configuration behind for
good. They had a host of robust 4 and 5 cyl engines in '79, so it just
seems silly that they bothered to start with the carry-over 2.0L AC from the
'79 Bay window bus. Despite all the bashing it gets on this list, the WBX
is a good engine, that can typically provide a long service life...but, it
was old-tech engineering that was outdated even when it was introduced. The
Audi 2.3L gasser and 2.0L turbodiesel fivers were a perfect match, though
they should've opted for a distributor-less design in the former to avoid
engine lid issues.
Oh, if only I ran the world...
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:45 PM, neil N <musomuso@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually VW did make the Vanagon with an inline 4. The diesel. :)
>
> And.....
>
> In South Africa, they put in 5 cylinders. This thread has a pic of one:
>
>
>
http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215380&highlight=south+african
>
> Check out this SA autotrader link
>
> http://www.autotrader.co.za/
>
> I got lots of hits under "microbus". Maybe some listings have
pics of
> engine bay.
>
> Neil.
>
--
Casey
'87 300TD
'94 100CSQ Avant
'89 Bluestar
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:08:09 +0100
From: Jens Jakob Andersen <jayjay@ZORCK.DK>
Subject: Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
Hi Neil
Agreed - VW used the diesel-I4 in the Vanagon. At the same time VW
had plenty of good gasoline I4 engines - using a lot of the same
parts as the diesel-i4 - so VW could in 1983 quite easily have
changed from boxer to gasoline I4 - but somewhere inside VW the
argumentation/businesscase for making the WBX is stored - and I think
that it would be an absolutely historic scoop to get the real story
about why VW decided to make the WBX, instead of changing to gasoline
I4 in 1983.
Happy driving
Jens Jakob
At 22:45 10-02-2009, neil N wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jens Jakob Andersen
<jayjay@zorck.dk> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >..... - on the day when they decided:
> > "Lets convert the CU to water-cooled - it will be real easy,
done
> > quite fast, and a good stable conversion - instead of just using one
> > of our great inline.-4 engines"
> >
> > So my basic question to this list - does anyone know about why
> > VW decided to create the WBX, instead of changing to inline-4 in
1983?
>
>
>Actually VW did make the Vanagon with an inline 4. The diesel. :)
>
>And.....
>
>In South Africa, they put in 5 cylinders. This thread has a pic of one:
>
>http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215380&highlight=south+african
>
>Check out this SA autotrader link
>
>http://www.autotrader.co.za/
>
>I got lots of hits under "microbus". Maybe some listings have
pics of
>engine bay.
>
>Neil.
------------------------------
End of vanagon Digest - 9 Feb 2009 to 10 Feb 2009 - Special issue
(#2009-123)
*****************************************************************************