There are people who have a different experience than you - your a dick for insulting them.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 21, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> 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..
>>