The original developers left it to rot, and I presume that for good reasons. FAT32 is superior in just about any way, especially considering that libfat is easily accessible and well-documented. The filesystem's also accessible via any standard computer, it's fully defragmentable if needs be, scannable if needs be and practically drag-and-drop. I find your attachment to WBFS, which is used for ISO storage and ISO storage only, highly unreasonable, but this debate has gone on long enough.
I don't know what kind of defragmenting tools you used, but the ones I use defragment on demand and down to 0% fragmentation if possible, including placing selected files in the so-called "Fast Access Area", close to the center of the disk itself to allow faster read speeds for the files you find most crucial.
You may hold onto your WBFS fascination and nobody tells you not to, but spreading misinformation isn't welcome either. The filesystem has been deprecated in favour of a more useful and user-friendly one. Those are the facts everybody has to deal with.
Unless your precious WBFS does what FAT32 does at the moment, nobody's going to switch. Huge clusters lead to one thing and one thing only - a huge waste of space when the file you are writing onto the disk is not divisible by the cluster size, or in fact, is smaller than the cluster size. Everything requires moderation, and that includes cluster size.