Date:         Sun, 9 Sep 2012 15:25:17 -0400
Reply-To:     Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Does the WBX suck valves?
Comments: To: Stuart MacMillan <stuartmacm@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <004201cd8ebb$7a8c5c60$6fa51520$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

The original equipment WB valves were sodium filled. Most replacements
including the ones in the AMC heads are not. That said it is extremely rare
for a WB to drop a valve. I have seen a number of failures were the keepers
got sucked through the spring retainers but piston damage from that has been
minimal.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Stuart MacMillan
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 2:47 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Does the WBX suck valves?

All aircooleds certainly did, but I don't recall seeing anything on this
list while I've been checking it (off and on since 1997 or so).  Since I've
got leaky valves, particularly the exhaust valves which were notorious for
snapping off "BWBX" (before the water boxer).  Anyone remember the sodium
filled exhaust valves in the 2.0 of the early '70s?



After thoroughly analyzing and pricing conversions, (min $12,000 by the time
you are done with all the worn out ancillary crap, including the
transmission) I may be looking to either slap some heads on this one or look
for a rebuildable core I can build over the winter.  I could also upgrade
the other systems piece by piece over time.



But, if this engine isn't a valve eater, (just a rod sucker, at least for
the 2.1) then I may just drive it, but only within 200 miles!



One thought is to just have a spare engine in the garage at all times and
forget about the conversion, but I would like to take some extended trips
someday and don't want to trailer an extra engine.



Stuart

'85 Westy