Skip to main content
Gerry | Vanagon
Checking account...
← vanagon.com home · Continue the discussion in the forum
Subject:Re: wbx reliabilty
From:mike miller
Date:Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:27:12 -0800

Scum bag indifferent owner!

Also a 'different' owner.

Mike

Changes oil regularly and is saving up for the needed engine rebuild/swap

> From: Ben T <BenTbtstr8@AOL.COM>
> Reply-To: BenTbtstr8@AOL.COM
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:54:49 EST
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: wbx reliabilty
>
> In a message dated 2/17/02 2:20:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ writes:
>
> << A decent modern engine can be driven hard and given minimal
> maintenance (including, for the lazy, much-longer-than-advised
> oilchange intervals) yet be very reliable. Subarus & Toyotas, for
> instance. VW's wasserboxer unfortunately doesn't fit this bill.
>>>
>
>
> OK at the risk of getting flamed as an indifferent owner, I must admit that I
> have driven my 87 2.1 WBX w/o an oil change, waterpump change, or much of
> anything else in the past 50,000 miles. Those of you in the SF Bay Area may
> notice a Metallic Beige (gold or something) 87 GL popping in and out of
> traffic. Fat wheels front and back. That would be my 200,000 mile plus on the
> original heads and headgasket daily driver.
>
> I've been trying to kill the bastard so I swap in a healthier powerplant. She
> keeps thwarting my efforts. I may have jinxed myself. Now I will have to
> consider an oilchange.
>
> BenT
> to destroy
>