Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:26:01 -0500
Reply-To: mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: 2.1 L WBX Overheat -1991 Carat
In-Reply-To: <6Ewx1q00F08X5Fr01EwzWM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
There are many aspects of "reliability." Durability of the basic engine doesn't seem to be in question for most of us who have Vanagons and maintain them. But a lot of that comes from us treating them like people in third world countries do their tired old Fords. That is, we are willing to keep putting time, energy, and some bailing wire into them. Actually, we differ from the third worlders in that last point. We pony up for actual parts. But the main point is that lots of vehicles would last and last and last if people put into them what Vanagon, especially camper, owners put into theirs.
Another aspect is whether the engine itself or support systems. Support systems (cooling, electrical) seem to require more attention on Vanagons than on most vehicles. But attention to those items keeps the engine itself going.
For me, for now, the waterboxer is working. Have I had to put more into it than I would into a modern power plant? Definitely. Has it gotten me where I want to go with it, reasonably reliably? Only gotten stopped by it two times, one because a water pump failed when I first acquired it, and one because I was too naive to be able to properly diagnose a false low oil pressure situation -- bad gauge installation leading to me believing the oil pressure was low. Cured that with a good gauge, proper sensors, and careful attention to oil and temperatures. Now, I have since had some concerns about oil pressure, but cured those concerns with a Ten Cent Life external oil cooler. I do remain convinced that the waterboxer simply isn't built for 100+ F ;ambient temperatures for long highway driving.
Would I install a non-waterboxer engine? Well, I do remain dependent on mechanics for maintenance. They don't love Frankencars, as the flat rate book doesn't fit.
mcneely
---- J Stewart <fonman4277@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> 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..
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
--
David McNeely
| 
