I must be the exception that proves the rule. 193K miles and never a major
problem with my 2.1 WBX motor. Really, very few minor problems, the only
one I can recall is a bad ignition coil that prevented the motor from
running.

-Mark

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Don Hanson <dhanson928@gmail.com> wrote:

>   I must say, when I hear people asking this same  general question over
> and over about what to do about the motor, when they've  broken their
> Vanagon...and they keep on with the questions about the WBX motor....What
> is wrong, People?  What part of "the WBX is very poor motor" do you not
> get?
>     Within ten minutes,, researching on the internet, when diesel fuel for
> my truck and Alaskan Camper got very expensive not long ago and I began
> looking for a camping vehicle I could afford to keep driving, it became
> quickly evident that VW vans, with  standard WBX motors were simply not
> very dependable and undeniably prone to all kinds of  frequent expensive
> failures.  It is right there, in black and white, over and over and
> over.....you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "La La La la la
> la..with your tongue our at the top of your voice" trying to deny the
> facts....but there it IS!
>
>    I suppose that "collectors" might have a reason to keep the
> poorly-designed and undependable standard VW waterboxer motor in their
> collector vans, but for those who use them daily, it makes no sense
> whatsoever to even consider wanting to re-install a very problematic and
> undeniably poorly-designed standard engine in an otherwise excellent
> vehicle..
>
> .If someone GAVE me a pristine Go Westie or Boston Bob motor, I still would
> NOT put it in my vanagon....Why would I, when all the other's who've driven
> these wonderful vehicles have already proven that the WBX motor simply is
> not good, except in a few very rare cases where someone has kept one
> running for more than a year or two.  What part of "Poor choice"...is
> unclear?
>
>    The math has been done.  The HIstory has been made.... The Vanagons have
> been around for a long time now, still spewing water and oil and blowing up
> and being rebuilt.   The ones that are giving good service are those that
> have different motors installed.....There is no other way to interpret all
> the available information about the WBX motor...
>
>    I've never bothered to do all the math but generally it seems like
> people spend  just slightly less having a Water boxer motor put into their
> vanagon than they would if they had another more effective type of motor
> installed....but really, people......Where's the justification for paying
> more for an inferior design, where's the fun in spending a couple of grand
> on a POS that will be blowing up in a few years anyhow and will get crummy
> gas mileage and go slowly till it does blow?
>
>    I'd say the jury should be in when it comes to the verdict on the
> Waterboxer motor......They aren't even heavy enough to make good boat
> anchors..
>
>