Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:33:16 -0800
Reply-To: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Marshall <vanagon@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Wasserboxer (was: I drove it! (engine swap info)5Cyl.)
In-Reply-To: <37aeb0b9.36c0c580@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Volks,
I don't see why people think the I4s are buzzy. The 2.0L I4 in my double
cab is far from buzzy. It doesn't sound like the oversized lawn mower as
the boxer did (no offence), but I would definatly say it is not buzzy.
Now, if you add a high lift cam and a ultra performance exhaust it is buzzy
- my 145hp 2.0L Rabbit PU is evidence of this. But, I wouldn't want that
2.0L in my Vanagon - ZERO power down low where you need it.
At 18:32 09/02/1999 EST, Paolo Damiani wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/9/99 1:32:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, dave@V-DUB.MUSA.
> COM writes:
>
> > I don't see what the fuss is, my Vanagon has plenty of power for a VW
> > bus. I think the wasserboxer is a great engine for the Vanagon, it
> > cruses fine all day near the redline and doesn't complain.
>
> Dave,
>
>In my heart I agree, but now that I'm looking at new heads (at least) at
>147K, I'm evaluating why I wanted a Vanagon in the first place.
>
>It wasn't just for the WBX.
>
>It was for the outstanding use of space within a wheelbase short enough to
>turn around on my street without a broken U-turn. It was space (real space)
>for seven full sized humans or the three of us and our two or three big
dogs (
>depending on if my son brings his from his Mom's house) . It's a portable
>dining room and a cavernous hauler if I need it. It's a great view from the
>driver's seat. It's a home away from home.
>
>If replacing the wasserboxer with an inline will improve the longevity and
>reliability, then so be it (but only if it's from VW or Audi... I have my
>neuroses about "contamination"). I agree that there is nothing like a smooth
>running boxer for buzz-free driving, (I'm a big fan of BMW bikes) but the VW
>waterboxer head problem is just too troublesome for me (and recurrent for
>some of us).
>
>I had considered a Boston Bob replacement, but I'd just rather take the easy
>way out and go the way that VW itself did (in SA). I had a Jetta with the
>big valve 1.8. I sold it at 180K after doing nothing to the engine except
>oil, coolant, and belt changes. I had a Fox with 137K which I sold with the
>same lack of trouble. Both vehicles are still on the road, I'm told.
>
>I may regret it while "buzzing" down the highway one day, but I'm hoping
it'll
>be many many miles from now.
>
>
>Paul
>89 Carat 147K (awaiting a quote on a Eurospec install)
>
>From: PaoloD1455@aol.com
>Return-path: <PaoloD1455@aol.com>
>To: dave@V-DUB.MUSA.COM
>Subject: Re: Wasserboxer (was: I drove it! (engine swap info)5Cyl.)
>Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:24:36 EST
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>In a message dated 2/9/99 1:32:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, dave@V-
>DUB.MUSA.COM writes:
>
>> I don't see what the fuss is, my Vanagon has plenty of power for a VW
>> bus. I think the wasserboxer is a great engine for the Vanagon, it
>> cruses fine all day near the redline and doesn't complain.
>
>Dave,
>
>In my heart I agree, but now that I'm looking at new heads (at least) at
147K,
>I'm evaluating why I wanted a Vanagon in the first place.
>
>It wasn't just for the WBX.
>
>It was for the outstanding use of space within a wheelbase short enough to
>turn around on my street without a broken U-turn. It was space (real space)
>for seven full sized humans or the three of us and our two or three big dogs
>(depending on if my son brings his from his Mom's house) . It's a portable
>dining room and a cavernous hauler if I need it. It's a great view from the
>driver's seat. It's a home away from home.
>
>If replacing the wasserboxer with an inline will improve the longevity and
>reliability, then so be it (but only if it's from VW or Audi... I have my
>neuroses about "contamination"). I agree that there is nothing like a smooth
>running boxer for buzz-free driving, (I'm a big fan of BMW bikes) but the VW
>waterboxer head problem is just too troublesome for me (and recurrent for
some
>of us).
>
>I had considered a Boston Bob replacement, but I'd just rather take the easy
>way out and go the way that VW itself did (in SA). I had a Jetta with the
big
>valve 1.8. I sold it at 180K after doing nothing to the engine except oil,
>coolant, and belt changes. I had a Fox with 137K which I sold with the same
>lack of trouble. Both vehicles are still on the road, I'm told.
>
>I may regret it while "buzzing" down the highway one day, but I'm hoping
it'll
>be many many miles from now.
>
>
>Paul
>89 Carat 147K (awaiting a quote on a Eurospec install)
>
-- David Marshall - Vanagon List Admin - Quesnel, BC, Canada --
-- 78 VW Rabbit, 80 VW Caddy, 87 Audi 5KSQ, 85 VW Cabriolet --
-- 88 2.0L VW Syncro Double Cab, WANTED: VW / Bombardier Iltis --
-- David's Volkswagen Home Page http://www.volkswagen.org --
-- Fast Forward Autobahn Sport Tuning http://www.fastforward.ca --
-- david@volkswagen.org (pmail) or vanagon@volkswagen.org (list) --
| 
