Not true. Porsche had problems with emissions, particularly cold-start
emissions, because air-cooled engines run "loose" before everything expands
to its proper tolerance. New air-cooled 911s consumed a quart of oil every
thousand miles. My watercooled Honda does that every 10,000 miles, and it
has 165,000 miles on it. I prefer the air-cooled Porsches, but the 986
(Boxster), 996 (911), and the new (heaven help us) Cayenne are all
water-cooled. Liquid cooling also allows for four-valve (or five valve)
heads. The only way Porsche was able to get multi-valve heads with air
cooling was to water cool the heads (the 959 and 962).

>From: John Lunetta <blun1432@OPTONLINE.NET>
>Reply-To: John Lunetta <blun1432@OPTONLINE.NET>
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: longivity of coversion engines
>Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:55:18 -0500
>
>I am not an air cooled fan, I have a watercooled vanagon and think it's
>superior to the air heads. But in response to Ken about why they stopped
>making the air cooled engines, I think they just did not want to bother to
>improve them. How come Porche never had a problem with emissions, and they
>never had a problem with making Horspower. I'll tell you I wish that VW had
>developed a 3.0L 6 waterboxer for the vanagon, I't would of been ideal.
>There I go again I am dreaming.
>Take care all John 1990 vanagon gl

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx