I  got 240 out of my 1990 Carat before a family member thought that driving
to a convenient place to make a call when the coolant light was on was a
good idea : (

Jim

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Mark McCulley <markmcculley@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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..
> >
> >
>