> Interesting points to make in a DEFENSE of the waterboxer engine
......... .

Ha ha. True.

But I was defending the 1.9    < grin >    Are you running a 1.9?

My new 2.1 Westy had little paperwork. A head was likely replaced. All
filters: Fram. Some fuel hoses replaced (one of which was really badly
scarred from rubbing on the firewall), all hoses to FI's were OEM, at least
one old small coolant hose seeped, the ISV module was toast, cat 1/2
clogged, muffler run WAY past its wear point etc. etc. I'm learning that
this engine was not a shining example of "well maintained". My point: it
likely wasn't as well maintained as Jacks 1.9. Anyhow.......

As you likely know, the 1.9 bottom end has been reputed to be more robust
than the 2.1 But this is based only upon what I've read. If one can accept
a head reseal as "normal" then a 1.9 can last longer than some may think.

So many factors involved.

Neil.

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:47 PM, <mcneely4@cox.net> wrote:

---- neil n <musomuso@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>

> > Like if my 2.1 idled properly, didn't surge, had even and higher
> > compression,
>
> Interesting points to make in a DEFENSE of the waterboxer engine .........
> .
>
> So, you'd say the one I have, with a rebuilt dropped in at 110k miles, now
> at 170k, well maintained since I got it at 139k and behaving very, very
> well for now should go  .................. forever, right?  :- )
>
> mcneely
>

--
Neil n

65 kb image Myford Ready For Assembly  http://tinyurl.com/64sx4rp

'88 Slate Blue Westy to be named.

'81 VanaJetta 2.0 "Jaco"  http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/

Vanagon VAG Gas I4/VR Swap Google Group:

http://groups.google.com/group/vanagons-with-vw-inline-4-cylinder-gas-engines