>????
>Ok, it's maybe my very bad English here but are you talking about the metal
>Bus's fuel line, the way they where install on Air-Cool engine?????
>I have work on so many Air Cool engine and all metal fuel line where in
>PERFECT SHAPE!!! And those stupid engineer went from a great design to a
>stupid one... ho yea, i see you guys comming, Air Cool engine where somewhat
>sealed form the outside elements.. still! I have never seen ONE rusted metal
>fuel line on any Bus's or Air-Cool vanagon! Subaru, come on...!!! Go see any
>old 2.2L from the 90', please, find some rust and show me a picture,
>Pleassssssseeee. The only good thing VW did is to use the most reliable and
>best quality hoses in the world... good thing for many VW Vanagon driver who
>are not aware that those should be service.
>
>Don't compare the very intelligent fuel distribution of the Subaru engine to
>the horrible VW one. Again, i will have to show you picture of both fuel
>rail so you will understand why VW design is so bad and plain stupid.
>
>I have stoped posting about how frigging great those conversions are... but
>i will never accept to read any comparison or bashing about the
>Vanaru/Subaru workmanship.
>
>I work 7 on 7, 12hr a day on those van, more than most of you here... i read
>so many crap sometime that it make me mad.
>
>Here what a'm doing right now:
>http://www.benplace.com/87_syncro1.htm
>
>If you don't know your stuff think twice before writing.
>
>Instead, for the newby, read this and do what you have to do... and NOT next
>week:
>http://www.benplace.com/fuel_line.htm

From what I hear, Ben, the Type 4 luftboxer was a GOOD engine (with
lots of hot-up potential). Certainly the 1.9-kitted 1.8 in my 75 Bay
took a lot of abuse and performed extremely well (80kmh in 3rd ,
stock trans, up a LONG STEEP hill with a full load; hitting 140kmh on
the flat when overtaking and still accelerating well; doing 130km at
80kmh whilst holding the speed down... WITH a blown piston). On the
other hand, the wasserboxer seems a piece of crap... why make an
engine that needs constant maintenance and has zero tolerance  of
abuse? Toyota has the right idea... cars that will go untold distance
with total abuse and NO maintenance... who has the right philosophy?
The real worls says: Japan. Why oh why did VW base the new engine on
the Type 1? Why not use a Type 4 blok with watercooled DOHC 16V
top-end, with 6-cylinder version as an option? We'll never know, as
the beancounters will never admit fault...
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut
� Opinions stated are mine, not those of Otago University
"There is water at the bottom of the ocean"  - Talking Heads