Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 1998 21:27:31 EST
Reply-To:     JordanVw <JordanVw@AOL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         JordanVw <JordanVw@AOL.COM>
Subject:      the vw waterboxer...and why it sucks..
Comments: To: vanagon@vanagon.com
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

why are people considering alternative engines for the vanagon?  because VW
never figured out how to make a good one.  They could have taken some advice
from Subaru...those 'lil buggers rust out before their engines die...
VW had almost 10 years to cure their leaky head gasket problem, and still
couldn't get it right. With the cost of some greedy mechanic's head gasket
jobs, every 70k mi (average) or so, and the cracking/pitting of the cyl heads,
no wonder people are seeking alternative engines.
Also, the Vw van has been the subject of engine swaps for a long time. people
have put just about any engine under the sun, in a Vw van...
while i am against someone botching up a splitty to put in a chevy V6,
(someone was gonna do that awhile back on the T2 list) i dont think it's the
same for vanagons.  these vans are daily drivers. they need to be reliable,
and keep up with the rest of the traffic flow on today's roads.  the vw
waterboxer barely does either.
why do you think they don't even offer the waterboxer in the new "Vanagons"
being made in South Africa?? Why did vw even make the waterboxer? why didn't
they just drop the boxer motor in '83.5 and go with the inline 4 GAS???

what's the sense of asking now...if you want reliability, and performance, go
to a different engine..

chris