Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:19:28 -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: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
in a discussion about 'why the waterboxer engine at all' here about a year
ago it was suggested that
either they wanted to keep a lot of opposed four engine building and
installing people doing what they already knew how to do ..
or perhaps union workers demanded it ..something like that ..
'political reasons' not purely technical choices about production costs, how
good the result worked out etc....
I'll at least say waterboxers are a true 'van engine' ..and not a car engine
put to work pushing a van ..
which is something vw has done traditionally since way back ... ..car engine
in a van it wasn't designed for ...
something I always thought didn't work too well really.
and they did cheap out at the head gasket/head sealing area.
I'm sure would have cost a whole bunch more..
but they could have had a flat deck design, with barrels that sit tightly in
the block ..
for example....the Renault 16 ( late 60's or 1970 design ) with an
aluminum engine block has that ..
steel piston barrels sit down tightly in the aluminum block, with a flat
deck ..
and a 'real head gasket' and a flat bottomed head.
Would have cost a lot more to engineer and develop than their lash-up
converted air-cooled design ..
but would have been so, so much better !
I do like that the Original Concept of the VW Bus or Van is ..
Opposed aluminum rear-mounted four cylinder engine ....
the waterboxer is that ...just the head gasket thing is a joke really ..
and Subaru 4 cylinder engines keep that configuration in a Vangon nicely
too.
and ...since vanagons have more weight on the front axle than the rear ..
( not a good thing really )
maybe they should have put in a nice cast iron block say 2.2 inline four
back there ..
that woulda been sweet !
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rodgers" <inua@CHARTER.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Originally: JLP rebuilt wbxr engines in Denver
> I couldn't say. Why did VW make the WBX for the Vanagon when the
> inline 4's were already here. That is a real mystery to me!
>
> John
>
> John Rodgers
> Clayartist and Moldmaker
> 88'GL VW Bus Driver
> Chelsea, AL
> Http://www.moldhaus.com
>
>
> On 2/10/2011 8:30 AM, VWBrain@aol.com wrote:
>> why did VW go back to the beetle size rods and bearings with the WBX
>> engines, why didn't they keep the bigger type4 rods and bearings??