Anyone tell me a rough price for a running type 4 engine (wbx) either a 1.9 or a 2.1?
TIA

Wbx isn't type4

i thought the wasser boxers were the type 5. type 4 is the air-cooled 2L

Yep type 4 was aircooled. The T3's went to the 1.9 then 2.1 water boxers which are a type1 based engine

Cheaper to go Subi than a rebuild

Last couple I have rebuilt properly have been 7-8g with new heads and bigbore kits, head studs are a drama and expensive!!!

This is what happens when non-VW slang from forums around the world becomes 'accepted' - it only causes confusion.

'Type 4' refers to the big-block air-cooled 1.7 and 1.8-litre engines originally designed for the VW 411 and 412 sedans (not sold here). That's why they are called Type 4 engines - they were for the Type 4 range of sedans and wagons. The 1.8 was also used in the VW-Porsche 914, and was later bored and stroked to 2.0. The 411-412 never used the 2.0-litre version.

Detuned low compression versions of the 1.7, 1.8 and 2.0 were used in the T2 Transporter. In Australia you had a choice of 1600 Type 1 or 1700 Type 4 engnes in 1973, then 1600 or 1800 in 1974-75. In 1976 the 1600 was dropped and the 2000cc engine was the only option until the T2 Kombi was discontinued in 1979.

The T3 Transporter also initally used the 2000cc Type 4 engine from its release here in 1982, but it was an improved version with fuel injection, hydraulic tappets and different exhaust ports. This engine was discontinued in 1984 when it was replaced by the 1.9-litre Wasserboxer (Wbx) engine. This was not based on the Type 4, but on the Type 1 long block! This was later enlarged to 2.1 litres. In Europe they got more choice of different specs for these motors than we got here (eg they also got a 1600 Wasserboxer!)

VW model 'Types' come from the chassis number and after 1980, the VIN. Beetle chassis numbers start with a 1, for Type 1. Kombis start with a 2, for Type 2. The 411 starts with a - you've guessed it, 4. That's the vehicle model, not the engine. A Kombi with a Type 4 engine is still a VW Type 2, as the code refers to the whole vehicle. On the more modern VIN, the VW model code is the 7th and 8th digit of the VIN. So a T3 Kombi is a model type 25, while a T3 pickup is a model type 24. A T4 Transporter is a model type 70 (so it's no longer a 'Type 2'). A T5 Transporter is a model type 7H. But the Crafter is a 2E and the Amarok is a 2H, so technically they are still VW 'Type 2s'.

'Type 5' has nothing to do with Kombis of any generation. The only Type 5 VWs have been the Scirocco (model type 53); Corrado (model type 50); the Golf/Jetta Mk6 (5K); the Golf Plus (5M); and the Tiguan (5N). The Brazilian-made Fox is a 5Z.

For a good rebuilt or exchange Type 4 long block, standard or modified, contact Garry Williams at VW Classic Kirrawee.

http://www.veedubclassic.com.au/ 

Very Good and detailed post Phil, Vw seemed desparate to save money and not let go of the original opposed four and add water cooling(poorly) and yet Subaru managed it magnificently! Go VWaru

It's an interesting story. Car wise, VW was losing money hand over fist in the early '70s as Beetle sales started to drop. The 411/412 range was a sales failure, the Type 3's sales were disappointing and the new Porsche small car prototypes were too expensive to build. Attempts to build the NSU K70 as a VW were also unsuccessful. VW had been overtaken by Fiat and Renault and was even threatened by Opel in Germany. Their future was looking bleak.

So they turned to their Audi (Auto Union) division, which they had bought in 1965 from Mercedes. With only a little tweaking, they were able to turn the Audi 80 sedan into the Passat and a new range was born. It was an instant success and turned VW's fortunes around. This design was also the basis of the Scirocco and Golf. The Polo was originally an Audi too, but a separate model family from the Golf/Passat.

The Type 4 motor certainly extended the T2 Transporter's life, as the old 1600 was inadequate by the 1970s. There was speculation at the time about a Golf-based front drive replacement, which would have been logical, so when the T3 was revealed in 1979 as still flat-four rear-engined, most reports of the time expressed surprise. I have one report that was titled, "VW Still Believes." But the bigger surprise was in 1984, when the wasserboxer motor appeared. Everyone expected it to be based on the existing big block Type 4 - but it wasn't! It was based on the Type 1. I don't know why they did this - the air-cooled Type 1 engine hadn't been built in Germany since 1978. The other strange thing was that, whether it was good or otherwise, the wasserboxer engine had no application in any other VW model. The Golf engine could be used in anything, so it was cost effective, but the Wasserboxer was not used in anything except the Transporter. Ultimately, it was an expensive design dead end.

Sure enough the T4 Transporter in 1992 reverted to the Golf-based front drive arrangement. Cost and production efficiency would have been major reasons, but market demand was another. All the competition vans had flat load floors front to back, and choices of different wheelbases. The T3 was only one wheelbase, and had the engine hump at the rear that made rear-loading less practical. Pallets could not be rear-loaded, for example. The T4 was designed to meet these market demands, and it and the later T5 and T6 have been very successful in Europe. Even here, the T5/T6 is the third best-selling van after the Hiace and iLoad. VW's larger van, the LT, appeared in 1976 and was front engine-rear drive, co designed by MAN. It later evolved into the Crafter, but even then it showed how the Transporter would eventually end up.

As for Subaru, well they are part of Fuji Heavy Industries so car making is only one part of their business. They've flirted with in-line engines in some models (Sherpa, anyone?), but comparitively they are a niche maker compared with VW, which is many times larger and has a much greater turnover. They've never made anything like the range of vehicles that VW has, so amortising design costs across a large range has not been so crucial. Subaru have never made a Transporter-like delivery van, for example. VW did experiment with bring back boxer engines in the small Up range, but found that costs were prohibitive.

Always the fountain of knowledge Phil, always a great read
The 411/412 sold ~3-400,000 cars world wide. Maybe not a stunner in VW terms, but for many manufacturers of the time was big numbers for one model type.
The 2L used in the T3 other than a number of external updates was the same as used in the '79 T2 (same heads, hyd tappets etc)

Use of the type 1 style motor for the WBX is not that strange, try getting a decent sized exhaust outlet between the push rods of a type 4 motor? The case itself I think is more a hybrid of type 1/type 4. VW's biggest error on the WBX was to stick with push rods and not pay more attention to water sealing.

Ditching the rear engine was a big plus in load space and most likely cost savings, but did nothing for vehicle balance and handling.