Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:28:00 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
good point..........the waterboxer engine is closer to the 'forever' 1600
air cooled engine, than it is to the Type IV engine.
even the valve covers are the same...........and the exhaust ports, or very
closely the same...
the waterboxer is really a water-jacketed bored and stroked 1600 air cooled
engine.
about whether waterboxer engines are 'good' or not........
I like to say ...........
It would be one thing if it was just marginally powered.
It would be another thing if it was a fabulous engine with a weak
headgasket arrangement..........
but to have both those things going against it..........marginal power and
joke head gaskets. ......
sorry Charlie !
If ever there was a good example of 'theoretical engineering' that is
supposed to work just fine, but doesn't actually out in the real world of
day to day driving and 20 + year old vehicles......
it's the joke head gasket system on waterboxer engines.
It doesn't even have 'head gaskets' in the congenital sense.
just a metal ring to seal in combustion, a tiny green o-ring to keep coolant
away from the metal ring on top of the barrel.....
and those little o-rings get rock hard after maybe 7 years and can't really
seal that well......
and the 'outer water retention rubber gasket' ..........a pure joke.
I can't think of one other engine in the entire world that uses this system.
It is truly a lash-up and an 'overnight, emergency, adaptation' of an
air-cooled design.
I consider the normal life of the 'head gaskets' to be about 80,000 miles.
I will say though.........
the bottom ends........
darn good !
particularly the 1.9 .................those will do 250,000 miles on the
bottom end with just head jobs every once in a great while - easily.
2.1's are a little more challenged in the rod bearings from what I've been
able to gather.
but we do love 'em !
Scott
www.turbovans.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeitgeist" <gruengeist@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: The real story about the invention of the WBX?
> Actually, the WBX is more closely akin to the earlier type one engine
> block
> and cylinder head design, with type four stuff thrown in for good measure.
> Again, a generally "good" engine, but not modern by any stretch.
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM, neil N <musomuso@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For sure.
>>
>> I was being a little bit of a smart a$$. ;)
>>
>> One has to wonder why. AFAIK, the WBX is based upon the AC 2.0. I
>> wonder if part of the reason ($) was the tooling? i.e. would any of
>> the AC 2.0 tooling be used to make the WBX? Still. They had other
>> engines already in production.
>>
>> Neil.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Casey
> '87 300TD
> '94 100CSQ Avant
> '89 Bluestar
