11 years of nary a problem other than a hall sender or water pump on my WBX.  Not a fan of the design, but it's earned my grudging respect.  When the TDI goes in there, it won't be 'cause I thought the WBX didn't serve me well.  It's the engine VW should have put in all their air cooled vehicles back in the 60's

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 20, 2015, at 10:25 AM, Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> 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..
>>