TheSamba.com :: View topic

Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:57 pm

I'm new to the VW world, so I wonder if any of you folks that have been round this for decades can answer why VW developed the WBX in the first place?

I understand early Vanagons carrying over the type IV air cooled engine, but when it was time to add a radiator, why didn't they use one of their inline fours? Or a variation thereof? They already had the inline diesel, so it could be done. It seems to me like it would be better to stick with an engine similar to others in the product line for parts, service, etc.

I like my WBX, but it seems strange to create a one off engine only used in one vehicle for 9 years.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:59 pm

vegpedlr wrote: used in one vehicle for 9 years.
That right there is pretty significant usage. Especially in a very popular model type.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:07 pm

In comparison to what?

9 years is actually a really short run for an engine.

Want to compare it to a small block Chevy?
1955 to current date.

VW took that suitcase engine & installed water jackets around the cylinder & under the head.

Saved money allegedly from developing a totally new engine.
Seems like a big joke to me when they did have a better engine selection available.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:24 pm

Interesting question. My guess #1 is VW was dedicated to staying with the traditional rear engine configuration. The 4 cylinder in-line gas/diesel engines VW had on the shelf were not exactly perfect for a Vanagon in the early days of production (1.5 liter, 1.6 liter and a 1.7 liter gas engines with around 60HP/70HP, tops) . And it could be a tight fit too. But most likely...

Guess #2..VW still had some of the older senior engineering talent still working for VW when the WBX was being designed. Using the resident knowledge..those guys water cooled the familiar VW flat four engine. A nice technical and tradition challenge to try and make that flat four design go another decade or two. (and Subaru had a nice production water cooled flat four engine running around too)

Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:29 pm

Terry Kay wrote:
9 years is actually a really short run for an engine.

Want to compare it to a small block Chevy?
1955 to current date.
That's what I thought. VW got lots of use out of type I's and type IV's on multiple models, but by the mid 80s, they had moved on. Why design a hybrid throwback engine instead?

Especially compared to the longevity of small block Chevys. Don't they still run push rods?

Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:47 pm

I remember in junior high school a kid excitedly proclaiming “My grandma has a Volkswagen with fuel injection!”, so VW was intent on upgrading their powerplant even in the mid ‘70s.

The aircooled engines had a fatal flaw, as I understood it. They might start leaking oil, which attracted dust, which clogged the cooling fins and eventually blocked airflow there and burned the metal. As drivers became increasingly ignorant about what went on in the engine room, VW was forced to abandon the aircooled engine. The first watercooled VW engine I saw was in a ’79 Rabbit.

And I make these statements in complete ignorance of actual history. The VW diesel may have been a great engine for the Rabbit, but was woefully inadequate for the Vanagon. Basically I think VW was experimenting with engines during this period. Their sales strategy was to offer Americans fuel miserly engines, in contrast to the gas guzzlers Detroit was pushing. In fact, this was the heyday of the muscle car.

If you think the WBX engine had a short run, consider that the diesel Vanagon was only sold for 3 years (I think). History has shown it to be a well-designed engine, considering it was essentially an experiment tested on the driving public. The Waterboxer was pretty much the same. Not really perfect but expediently designed and fit into a Vanagon because the aircooled was no longer suitable for modern driving conditions.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:50 pm

Yep.
LS-7's in the new Vette has pushrods.

318 Chrysler's ran for at least 30 some years.

There are a lot of engines that ran , have run, for a lot longer than 9 model years.

The old upright VW engines that were in bugs were proportioned right for that car.
You could pretty much flog the hell outa them with no penalty.
Then VW started using them in Bus's, and it was a bit too much for a 60 horse engine to push without overheating them, cooking valves etc.
The upright engine was the best engine VW made.
Real simple, and pretty forgiving for what it was.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:05 pm

I read somewhere that VW was producing so many Rabbit/Golfs during this time that they didn't have enough inline fours to shift to the T3/Vanagons when they decided to go water cooled. The WBX was thus a fairly simple solution.
That could be wrong.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:13 pm

As I've stated before many times, the WBX was the perfect engine for VAG to unveil with the '68 Bay bus launch, and then to propel the entire lineup of rear engined vehicles through the '70's. With the advent of FWD inline water cooled engines in the mid-'70's the future was hatched, and the T3 should've logically been incorporated into that forward thinking mold. It should've been built around a longitudinal FWD arrangement like the Passat and Audis, with a Quattro AWD option added to the range. Rear mounted and flat engines are cul-de-sac designs for boutique configurations, which makes the T3 a real oddball dinosaur.

The WBX itself would've been an excellent engine for smaller sedans like the Beetle and Type IV. And despite all the loony negative hand-wringing that goes on around here, the basic design in pretty stout, and there are countless examples of intact factory engines that have gone well past 250k with nary a peep. Sadly, at its unveiling in '83 it was already an orphan design way past its sell-by date, and was eclipsed by inline engines which were/are far more suited to moving these big industrial boxes. My two WBX engines have both served me well, so I respect them tremendously, but can't wait to finally install an inline engine like VAG should've done from the get-go

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:15 pm

there could have been a marketing adv. also

VW did need to shift to water cooling because aircooled engines have poor emissions performance, higher noise levels, and make less power than water-cooled designs

that is why Porsche first water-cooled the heads on some engines, then went to fully water-cooled on the 996 & Boxster - I dunno if those are considered to be wrapping cooling jackets around the former motor or not

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:28 pm

The mistake here is to think that all engineering must make sense from an engineering bubble perspective. Volkswagen being a giant corporation many decisions are made by executives who must balance corporate politics as much as anything else. Jealousy, back-stabbing, divisional pride, somebody afraid of insulting someone with influence, projected profit margins, holding onto power, Subaru envy, anything like that could have played into the decision.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:28 pm

Let's not forget the Ford small block that was introduced in 1962 as a 260ci and was produced until 2001 in the 5.0 Explorer. That was a good run.

The WBX was just a worked over Type 1 air cooled engine in my opinion. It would have been nice if VW had approached the Porsche crew and procured a variation of a flat six. Then this van would have had the power it needed to get out of it's own way.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:34 pm

Actually the engine is a water jacketed Type 2, 2.0 suitcase engine which they were already using in the 80 to 83.5 Vanagons.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:07 pm

pbrown wrote: It would have been nice if VW had approached the Porsche crew and procured a variation of a flat six.
That's my corollary question.

Once into the WBX design, why did they quit developing it? Subaru kept on, and the many Subie drivers will attest to that design. Though Subies had their own problems through the 80s, leaky heads and exploding CVs, just like my WBX.

Or, add two more cylinders like Porsche? They got lots of power out of an air cooled boxer for a long time.

Thanks for the interesting VW history.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:29 pm

The question is "Why did they stick with it and not move on to something better as they did in South Africa?"

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:40 pm

The vanagon air-cooled 2.0L, similar but not exactly like those on the latest Bay buses, quickly became an over-heating problem trying to push the heavier vanagon so they switched to 1.9L wbxr.

During this time various NA regulations regarding safety and smog were beginning to catch up with the buses/vans and Vw was alert to this.

The 1.9L wbxr became one of the most successful engines ever made throughout the world, especially for industrial use. I've read more 1.9L engines were made than any other wbxr engine but this is a research project for someone.

The 2.1L was simply intended to give a little more power but by this time the writing was on the wall for rear engined rigs because of those regs. -- they simply were unable to meet the advancing requirements for greater mpg's, safety and pollution controls.

Also, records have shown that Vw already realized then that the vanagon was passe so they didn't want to commit a lot of $$$ into further major upgrades. And this was around the time Iaccoca's Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth minivans were coming out and they were killing the Vw bus market.

So it was around the early to mid 80's that the Eurovan was already in the planning stages.

This is from what I've read and how it was explained to me. There's more detail but that's the rough size of it.

Regarding the 2.1L, I think it did a fantastic job running all our rigs all this time and continuing to do so. We can complain about it being underpowered for the rig but I consider that engine a success, especially keeping in mind it's fundamental design was developed in the late 30's and now, as Terry said, has a water jacket (and some added electronics).

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:43 pm

Wildthings wrote: The question is "Why did they stick with it and not move on to something better as they did in South Africa?"

^^^ Because the NA sales numbers didn't justify continuing to offer
a marginally-accepted product with a questionable future...???

Vanagon sales continued to drop into the 90's as "real" (Chrysler) minivans
took off like hotcakes... :cry:

<shrug>

^^^ EDIT: I guess WestyBob beat me to it, a little... :wink:

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:46 pm

pbrown wrote: It would have been nice if VW had approached the Porsche crew and procured a variation of a flat six. Then this van would have had the power it needed to get out of it's own way.

It went the opposite way: Porsche procured a handful of T3's and worked their own magic into what is called the B32.

http://www.carbuildindex.com/24024/porsche-vw-t3-bus-the-b32/

Sure would be awesome to have that 3.2L flat-6. =P~ :D If VW had used a Porsche engine (and potentially other bits), however, the vans would've been priced out of the North American market long before 1991. :?

Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:51 pm

dhaavers wrote: Wildthings wrote: The question is "Why did they stick with it and not move on to something better as they did in South Africa?"

^^^ Because the NA sales numbers didn't justify continuing to offer
a marginally-accepted product with a questionable future...???

Vanagon sales continued to drop into the 90's as "real" (Chrysler) minivans
took off like hotcakes... :cry:

<shrug>

^^^ EDIT: I guess WestyBob beat me to it, a little... :wink:

Yeah, but one of the main reasons it was marginally accepted was that it was marginally powered and that marginal power plant had a history of needing expensive work done to it at around 80k miles and blowing up at about twice that mileage. By 1990 a used '86 Vanagon with 100k on the speedometer brought almost nothing even though it might still looked nice inside and out.

Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:02 pm

I'd say the WBX is more closely related to the Type 1 1600 engine than the Type 4 2.0. It isn't simply a water jacketed version of either though.

Watercooled inline 4 diesel engines were used in about as many T3 vehicles as wbx engines. Diesels were used from 81-92. They even built a special version that wasn't used in any other vehicle.

The T3 was meant for watercooling from the beginning. The engines just weren't ready for a while. The diesel was ready first.

Why they never fitted the inline 4 gas to European production is something I would like to know.

Mark

Terry Kay wrote: Actually the engine is a water jacketed Type 2, 2.0 suitcase engine which they were already using in the 80 to 83.5 Vanagons.