

| Subject: | Re: WBX motor rather than .... |
| From: | Zeitgeist |
| Date: | Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:49:49 -0700 |
Porsche now owns a controlling stake in VW. While I'm not nearly as much of a WBX basher as some of the silly whiners around here, I do think they should've saved the millions spent in R&D and just culled from the VAG parts bin and slipped in an inline (Gas) Audi 2.3 fiver and VW 1.8/2.0, and (Diesel) Audi 2.0 fiver and VW 1.6/1.9 and called it good. No need to piddle around with the ancient pushrod stuff linking back to the thirties. That said, the WBX is a surprisingly robust engine despite itself, but there was still no valid rationale for its very existence. On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Don Hanson <dhanson@gorge.net> wrote: > So, I wonder which German company copied which? When Porsche changed to > water cooled they built a motor kinda like VWs..in that it's really an air > cooled 911 cobbled up with water jackets around. Is not the WBX similar > (or > vica/versa) with the WBX being an air cooled with water? > Except Porsche gave up after a few years of building what they called the > 993 (the 'transition' motor) and built a whole new package, the > 996..re-designed with only the opposed six configuration remaining from the > air cooled one. > Wonder why VW stuck with the WBX for so long when it has weak spots? > Interesting though that those two companies, who are almost affiliated, > did such similar transition from AC to water.. > Don Hanson > > PS...You Soobie guys...they at Porsche get about 475 rwhp from a normally > aspirated engine suitable to go to Le Mans and run flat out for 24hrs..Try > that with a turboless svx. > -- Casey '87 300TD '94 100CSQ Avant '89 Bluestar The People's Republic of Cascadia
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »