>Not really, I just want others to KNOW that there are
>viable options to swapping out the engine.

>The swapping crowd seems to constantly compare the
>stock engine specs to the I4 and other options while
>ignoring the improved specs for the improvements done
>to the WBX by me and others.

What are you're improved specs for your "Super WBX" - hate to harp on this, but until you provide a dyno sheet, you've not proven any improvements.

>I choose to keep the stock FI system, but there are
>many different options available from single throat
>carbs to dual-dual throat digital FI systems to turbos
>that with a little modification can be used to
>significantly increase power.

Digital FI systems?  Turbos?  Ya', that's cheap - by the time you put a turbo and digital fuel injection on a WBX and working right, you'll have more into it than a 1.8T AND a Porsche 5 speed!  Turbocharge and stress an engine that already has a weak history?  Does not sound like a reliability building experiment.

>What?  I considered all parts of the engine.  I have
>over 27,000 miles and no troubles with the engine. And
>now that I have resolved the FI problems it runs great.

Hummm, so your proof that it will last 200-300,000 miles is where?

>It is erronious for you to believe that ALL factory
>engine will be perfect comming off the line.

The likelyhood of an engine coming off the assembly line bad vs. rebuilt w/ mods, not a favorable ratio.

I'm not saying you can't rebuild an engine and have it last.  I'm not saying you can't hop up and engine and make it last.  But, the reliability of the I-4 has been proven a million times over where as the basic unreliablility (relative to other engines) of the waterboxer has become epic and legondary.

I like the statement, and I paraphrase, made by another list member, about being "at one with your van", and making your choice accordingly...

Heath