Date:         Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:16:10 -0800
Reply-To:     neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         neil N <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
Comments: To: Zeitgeist <gruengeist@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <1b85fa6a0902101402o2cc2dffbgaee517fa1dc9898@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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 was old-tech engineering that was outdated even when it was introduced.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.