---- Evan Mac Donald <evanm@ATT.NET> wrote: 
> All right. I have been thinking of off-beat, kind of "cool" engines to 
replace the not-all-it-could-be waterboxer, and one I keep coming back to is a 
Wankel 2-rotor, from Mazda. The later ones were fuel injected, so no carb 
worries, and I figure the high RPM needs of the engine could be met by putting 
it together with a Deisel gearbox, and its 4.86 or even 5.11 (or so) final 
drive. It is low on torque, which is an obvious bad point, but if you let it 
rev, which it surely can, it should be quite happy at 5500or so RPM on the 
highway at cruise. Lots happier than our regular engines would be at thier 
regular cruise RPM of 3600 to 4000....

Anybody wanna poke holes in this (ok, crazy) theory?
 Evan Mac Donald 

Well, for one you are very unlikely to be able to meet emission standards.  The original could not do so even in its factory configuration in a Mazda, iirc.  I realize that lots of people seem to want to (and are happy when they have done so) put engines other than the waterboxer in their vans.  The waterboxer does what it was jury rigged to do by VW, run the van fairly efficiently and smoothly.  There are kinks compared to more modern vehicles, but compared to the cars we had back in the day, it is a miracle on wheels (thought I'd never think that or say so, but it is true).  If you want more power, GoWesty builds excellent waterboxers that are upgraded to larger displacement, power, and torque.  And you won't be driving a transformed vehicle that few people will know how or be willing to work on should you eventually send the vehicle on to someone else.  Just my belief.  Someone who can  exercise skill, knowledge, and ingenuity in re-engineering a vehicle does have my admiration.

mcneely