

| Subject: | Re: Some points on why the Wasserboxer was the way for me... |
| From: | Per Lindgren |
| Date: | Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:59:46 +0100 |
Robert Lilley wrote: > I was thinking about VWs use of hoses and why are the hoses on the outside of > the engine rather than built into the engine...Could it be that it is cheaper > to replace a hose on the outside rather than remove an inline head to replace > a blown gasket... just a thought... Also remember the fact that the wbx is a converted type1 engine, and it was probably much easier for VW to place a lot of hoses on the outside of the engine, than built into the engine. As many others, I have also wondered why VW stuck with the wbx, when they already had the I-4 conversion ready in the form of the diesel. Well, consider the fact that in 1983, the largest engine they had was 1,6, except for the GTI engine in the - well - GTI. 1983 was the first year for the 1,8. They just couldn't stick in the 2,0 as we can these days. So, when they used a lot of dough redeveloping the boxer, they had to stick with it to pay it off. PerL 87 Syncro 112i
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »