This comparison comes to mind: My '85 Weekender has it's original 1.9, and I recently replaced the right side head/gasket at 155K miles. My 2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser (company car) had a bad cylinder head at 68K miles, and at 135K it is now resting comfortably in a junk yard. WBX=1, Chrysler=0! Jeff

----- Original Message -----

> See? "Deniers"

> It does not matter how many times the subject of WBX engine reliability
> comes up, there are plenty who simply LOVE the WBX motor for some reason
> that I have never heard adequately explained.

> There's probably no data collected on how often a WBX blows up compared
> to any other engine..If there was, I would suspect there would still be
> people with their heads in the sand, buying up WBX motors... But really
> people....when a popular product has a really notoriously bad reputation
> for lots of ongoing problems and weak design features, when we just read
> half a dozen posts about all the bad things that get sent out with rebuilt
> WBX motors, when the Rap is SO BAD on a product....why would you suppose
> everyone else is always WRONG about it, and your particular encounter with
> this product, that will certainly be different.....?

> I guess I'll never know exactly why people continue to believe, despite
> 30-some years of historically poor performance, that an old crummy design
> is still a "good" choice to put back into a vanagon when your first (or
> 15th) stock motor blows up or wets the bed again....

> Go on, stick another WBX motor in there....You may be one of the lucky
> ones that has it go 10k+ miles before the next problem....but if history
> has been written correctly, that is unlikely...."Why, I remember my Great
> Aunt, from Kazakastan....smoked a carton a day for her whole life....lived
> to be 109 and never once coughed! "....yeah, right....

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Angus Gordon <birdworks@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Mark me down as a waterboxer fan as well. When first researching T3's in
> > the '90's I heard the usual badmouthing of the WBX and was looking into
> > aircooled , but fortunately ran into a VW mechanic in N. Carolina who
> > showed me the water jacket seal problem and his epoxy repair. I immediately
> > thought - "that's my kind of engine!"
> >
> > It may not be for everyone, but if you can work on it yourself, (a VW
> > tradition) it can be simple and dependable.
> >
> > Here's the requisite Friday image -
> >
> > http://vanagonlust.tumblr.com/post/113678988574/waterboxer
> >
> >
> > Angus
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:07 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..
> > >>
> > >>
> >