Date:         Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:10:15 -0700
Reply-To:     neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Low compression, more test results-busaid inying used vans!
Comments: To: Jim Felder <jim.felder@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <CAFnDXk0hb-5Ohouq8t1seD2K9m8s_g5VpKB2=od-PJH=KSXZgA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Just recently, I somewhat ignorantly issued a blanket statement to a
local Vanagon mechanic that the 2.1 rod bolts were prone to failing.
From his POV, he was pretty adamant that when the rod(s) blew, it
wasn't always, or usually, due to poor design of an engine part. He
suggested that since the WBX is a well balanced engine, people ignore
the engine sound, tach or speedo, hold it at higher RPM's for too
long, and "boom". Moreover, when they discover the new engine vent
hole, they aren't likely to admit to (or know they were) pushing the
engine too hard before the metallic bongos started.

Since I now own a 2.1, I was curious of the rod bolt issue. His
opinion balanced out my thoughts on the rod bolt and the overall
reliability of the 2.1

As I'm learning, determining a given WBX engine's work history and use
or abuse, is pretty hard to do.

Neil.

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jim Felder <jim.felder@gmail.com> wrote:

> With all due respect to your particular experiences, the statement that the
> Waterboxer wasn't meant for continuous duty would be news to the thousands
> of owners with 20+ year old Vanagons.


> .....  What ends up getting the
> Waterboxer is not so much thrown rods or dropped valves but death by
> overheating.



--
Neil n

65 kb image Myford Ready For Assembly  http://tinyurl.com/64sx4rp

'88 Slate Blue Westy to be named.

'81 VanaJetta 2.0 "Jaco"  http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/

Vanagon VAG Gas I4/VR Swap Google Group:

http://groups.google.com/group/vanagons-with-vw-inline-4-cylinder-gas-engines