Date:         Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:51:46 -0500
Reply-To:     Allan Streib <streib@CS.INDIANA.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Allan Streib <streib@CS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
Comments: To: J Stewart <fonman4277@COMCAST.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <1727620188.247061234380387400.JavaMail.root@sz0063a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:26:27 +0000, "J Stewart" <fonman4277@COMCAST.NET> said:

> <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.>
>
> Awww, geez, here we go with the Union bashing again! But, wait a
> minute...isn't the Subaru also a water cooled flat 4 (or 6) engine?
> Perhaps the same Unions forced this design on the Japanese? Maybe the
> same Unions also forced them to engineer it better? Damn Unions!

I don't see this as union-bashing, just a reasonable explanation for why VW would quickly slapdash the WBX together instead of switching over to a proven mature I4 engine.  What Subaru did, or the merits of the boxer design in the abstract is not under argument.

Allan
--
1991 Vanagon GL