I've had four WBXs, two 1.9s and two 2.1s.  The original 1.9 in my '84 went over 200k trouble free after a factory subsidized head reseal at about 45k, the other one is in my '85, factory original, and still working fine, if with low compression.  In the '84 I blew up a used 2.1, and the other was rebuilt.  The rings failed to seat and the builder re-did the rings.  It had about 25k trouble free miles when I sold it to buy an  EVC.  Big mistake.

The problem is you can't recreate the factory engine today, the parts are NLA.  So, you are stuck with AMC heads that have to have the junk valves replaced and re-use everything else.  It's interesting reading to read what Go Westy does to their engines--custom forged pistons, re-worked rods, bored out cylinders, higher compression, etc., and then you look at The Samba and see all the problems some folks have with them.

Four is enough for me, I'm not spending $4000k+ for another one. 

Stuart

---- Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> I'm often unwilling to accept "the general consensus"..but I'm smart 
> enough to read up on stuff before I buy.  There was so much 
> information on the failures and problematic reliability of the WBX as 
> it comes in a Vanagon that it just ruled-out that motor for me.  I'm 
> not saying an inline VW motor is perfect... and never having dealt 
> with the wbx motor myself I can't say from experience anything.  But 
> "Everyone" can't be totally lying about leaky heads expensive and 
> frequently-needed major work and the need for very specific experienced mechanical workers to keep them going.
>
> I chose to avoid that.
>
> On Feb 23, 2014 4:13 PM, "Karl Wolz" <wolzphoto@q.com> wrote:
>
> > Stick with the waterboxer, but get it, and keep it, running right.
> >
David McNeely