Date:         Sun, 16 Jul 2000 12:49:24 -0000
Reply-To:     Pat Dooley <pdooley@gte.net>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Pat Dooley <pdooley@gte.net>
Subject:      Re: Gotta Be a Wasserboxer!
In-Reply-To:  <200007161500.IAA04792@snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

OK, point taken.
But a conversion motor would be even easier to get parts for.
The waterboxer motor is not nearly as common as a Ford 2.3 or Buick 3.8, for
example.
There is also many more Ford and GM dealers around the country than VW
dealers.  Most VW dealers have to order waterbox parts anyway.  Where's the
advantage?  Plus VW parts are always more expensive then domestic parts, at
least in my experience.

As far as reliability and durability, the 2.3 is proven itself far better
than the waterbox.  Lets say you crack your 2.3 head(nearly impossible) due
to overheating 1000 miles from home.  OK, a local junkyard will probably
have a Ranger, Mustang, Pinto, Thunderbird, Fairmont, etc.
They all run 2.3's.  R&R the head in an hour and your done.  Try that with a
waterboxer.

Oh, and for the $250 waterboxer studs, you can buy a complete gasket set,
rings, bearings AND new head bolts for a 2.3.   Hmmmmmmm.
Extracting studs??  Unheard of in a 2.3 application.

Really, where is the WB advantage?
Look, even VW gave up on the WB.  The SA vanagons don't use them.

Again, I'm not trying to slam anybody, and I respect the purist who wants to
keep the faith.  I am just offering the other side.  Not that the other side
is perfect.
My conversion started 2 years ago and is still not done.  I have never even
driven a vanagon because of this.

I have built many watercooled VW's and Audis and 2.3 turbo Merkurs, Pintos
and Turbocoupes though.
I really think the 2.3T vanagon has potential.  As soon as time becomes
available to finish the project, I will update my site and provide some
feedback.

>
> For long-distance travels, reliability and durability are
> the main concern for me, not performance.
> The stock 2.1 has enough power for me,
> if it's in top operating condition.
> Also availability of spare parts and dealer service
> across the country is of importance.
> That's my reason for sticking with the wasserboxer.
> Imo one important part of a good top-end rebuilt is
> replacing all the cylinder head studs as a routine,
> at least after 120,000 miles. That's a lot of heat cycles.
> One can test-torque the studs, but I still think they're
> weakened after so many years and miles.
> Of course, the problem is replacing the studs doesn't
> come cheap. About $250 for all new improved oem studs,
> and $150 labor to have the old ones removed and new ones installed
> for the bolt extractor professional (there's one here where I live.)
> It's basically those 16 studs that hold the whole contraption
> together.
> Anyways, I did my heads after about 110,000 miles, because
> I saw a little bit of green corrosion around one cylinder head
> gasket.
> I already put 10,000 miles so far on the top-end rebuilt in less
> than 3 months, and it runs like a swiss-clock. No heads pulling
> away here. (knock on wood, of course).
> Also don't forget to have the new heads ceramic-coated.
> Harald
> '90 westy
>
> Sean wrote:
> > Thirdly, I saw the Vanagon article in Hot VWs on the saga of
> the author's
> > '91 Carat. Considering the mileage between failures, this guy must have
> had
> > some questionable mechanics. He claims the heads worked off after a full
> > top-end rebuild, and in less than a thousand miles?
>