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??