Date:         Tue, 16 Feb 1999 06:41:29 -0800
Reply-To:     Doug Jones <duge4wd@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Doug Jones <duge4wd@EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Subject:      2.1L Wasserboxer Power Rebuild[correction]

Robert,
I believe I understand your point; It appears neither of us fully expressed
ourselves in our posts. I don't deny that crank whip is not THE problem with
wasserboxers as I know them. I just felt that your post was denying the
possible existence of crank flex in the wasserboxer, and possibly the
straight eight. Also please look at my post again in case I may have
miscommunicated, I meant to refer to the cases/blocks/mains as being
magnesium, aluminum, and steel; I am fully aware that a crankshaft is made
of steel. I guess I should have emphasized the cases just prior to listing
the materials. I'd hate to see what a magnesium crank would look like after
a single run to redline(if it made it that far). I was not coming close to
saying a Buick straight eight was incapable of turning ANY number of
revolutions. I don't know the distribution of the mains in that engine: but,
a VW engine (especially an aircooled one which is what I emphasized in my
post--ACVW) will experience crank flex which is evidenced at the #2 main at
the mid span of the crank where a lop-sided load will occur. I tried to
emphasize my experience is with ACVWs, and flex definitely without a doubt
occurs in those engines. If the mains, and crank throws are the same as a T4
engine, the wasserboxer will experience it as well. If the wasserboxer is
fully
balanced fram the factory, while it won't. And it should effect any engine
with
an unbalanced load. If I was misleading by trying to keep my post short,
I apologize for the confusion.


Doug Jones