On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Zeitgeist <gruengeist@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 was old-tech engineering that was outdated even when it was introduced.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.
For sure. I was being a little bit of a smart a$$. ;) One has to wonder why. AFAIK, the WBX is based upon the AC 2.0. I wonder if part of the reason ($) was the tooling? i.e. would any of the AC 2.0 tooling be used to make the WBX? Still. They had other engines already in production. Neil. |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.