Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 2015, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:56:35 +0000
Reply-To:     J Stewart <fonman4277@COMCAST.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         J Stewart <fonman4277@COMCAST.NET>
Subject:      Re: 2.1 L WBX Overheat -1991 Carat
Comments: To: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <CAHTkEuJCBTCfYTR=EKi39eJCy6jjqYAJiCHeuzm=CTLOLFdTEw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

This comparison comes to mind: My '85 Weekender has it's original 1.9, and I recently replaced the right side head/gasket at 155K miles. My 2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser (company car) had a bad cylinder head at 68K miles, and at 135K it is now resting comfortably in a junk yard. WBX=1, Chrysler=0! Jeff

----- Original Message -----

> See? "Deniers"

> It does not matter how many times the subject of WBX engine reliability > comes up, there are plenty who simply LOVE the WBX motor for some reason > that I have never heard adequately explained.

> There's probably no data collected on how often a WBX blows up compared > to any other engine..If there was, I would suspect there would still be > people with their heads in the sand, buying up WBX motors... But really > people....when a popular product has a really notoriously bad reputation > for lots of ongoing problems and weak design features, when we just read > half a dozen posts about all the bad things that get sent out with rebuilt > WBX motors, when the Rap is SO BAD on a product....why would you suppose > everyone else is always WRONG about it, and your particular encounter with > this product, that will certainly be different.....?

> I guess I'll never know exactly why people continue to believe, despite > 30-some years of historically poor performance, that an old crummy design > is still a "good" choice to put back into a vanagon when your first (or > 15th) stock motor blows up or wets the bed again....

> Go on, stick another WBX motor in there....You may be one of the lucky > ones that has it go 10k+ miles before the next problem....but if history > has been written correctly, that is unlikely...."Why, I remember my Great > Aunt, from Kazakastan....smoked a carton a day for her whole life....lived > to be 109 and never once coughed! "....yeah, right....

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Angus Gordon <birdworks@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Mark me down as a waterboxer fan as well. When first researching T3's in > > the '90's I heard the usual badmouthing of the WBX and was looking into > > aircooled , but fortunately ran into a VW mechanic in N. Carolina who > > showed me the water jacket seal problem and his epoxy repair. I immediately > > thought - "that's my kind of engine!" > > > > It may not be for everyone, but if you can work on it yourself, (a VW > > tradition) it can be simple and dependable. > > > > Here's the requisite Friday image - > > > > http://vanagonlust.tumblr.com/post/113678988574/waterboxer > > > > > > Angus > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Mark McCulley <markmcculley@GMAIL.COM> > > wrote: > > > > > > I must be the exception that proves the rule. 193K miles and never a > > major > > > problem with my 2.1 WBX motor. Really, very few minor problems, the only > > > one I can recall is a bad ignition coil that prevented the motor from > > > running. > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Don Hanson <dhanson928@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I must say, when I hear people asking this same general question over > > >> and over about what to do about the motor, when they've broken their > > >> Vanagon...and they keep on with the questions about the WBX > > motor....What > > >> is wrong, People? What part of "the WBX is very poor motor" do you not > > >> get? > > >> Within ten minutes,, researching on the internet, when diesel fuel for > > >> my truck and Alaskan Camper got very expensive not long ago and I began > > >> looking for a camping vehicle I could afford to keep driving, it became > > >> quickly evident that VW vans, with standard WBX motors were simply not > > >> very dependable and undeniably prone to all kinds of frequent expensive > > >> failures. It is right there, in black and white, over and over and > > >> over.....you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "La La La la la > > >> la..with your tongue our at the top of your voice" trying to deny the > > >> facts....but there it IS! > > >> > > >> I suppose that "collectors" might have a reason to keep the > > >> poorly-designed and undependable standard VW waterboxer motor in their > > >> collector vans, but for those who use them daily, it makes no sense > > >> whatsoever to even consider wanting to re-install a very problematic and > > >> undeniably poorly-designed standard engine in an otherwise excellent > > >> vehicle.. > > >> > > >> .If someone GAVE me a pristine Go Westie or Boston Bob motor, I still > > would > > >> NOT put it in my vanagon....Why would I, when all the other's who've > > driven > > >> these wonderful vehicles have already proven that the WBX motor simply > > is > > >> not good, except in a few very rare cases where someone has kept one > > >> running for more than a year or two. What part of "Poor choice"...is > > >> unclear? > > >> > > >> The math has been done. The HIstory has been made.... The Vanagons > > have > > >> been around for a long time now, still spewing water and oil and > > blowing up > > >> and being rebuilt. The ones that are giving good service are those > > that > > >> have different motors installed.....There is no other way to interpret > > all > > >> the available information about the WBX motor... > > >> > > >> I've never bothered to do all the math but generally it seems like > > >> people spend just slightly less having a Water boxer motor put into > > their > > >> vanagon than they would if they had another more effective type of motor > > >> installed....but really, people......Where's the justification for > > paying > > >> more for an inferior design, where's the fun in spending a couple of > > grand > > >> on a POS that will be blowing up in a few years anyhow and will get > > crummy > > >> gas mileage and go slowly till it does blow? > > >> > > >> I'd say the jury should be in when it comes to the verdict on the > > >> Waterboxer motor......They aren't even heavy enough to make good boat > > >> anchors.. > > >> > > >> > >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.