Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:40:00 -0700
Reply-To: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Organization: Genentech, Inc.
Subject: Re: Water vs. Air
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
You probably mean "post '86," as that is when the 2.1L water cooled engine made
it's debut.
I own both an air cooled and a water cooled vanagon, and I posted a list of
advantages and disadvantages of each, based of course on my own experience and
opinions. Others may feel different.
The abstract is that for general driveability, power, comfort, longevity and
ease of repair, the late water-cooled vanagon is hard to beat. The air cooled
vans are slower, louder, colder, harder to work on, and the engines are not as
long-lived as the newer vans. Despite the propensity of the water cooled
engines to blow their head gaskets at high mileage, the air cooled engines also
have a tendency to drop their exhaust valve seats at moderate to high mileage,
often with fatal consequences for the rest of the engine. In the case of the
water cooled engine, you can prolong it's life by proper cooling system
maintenance. The aircooled engine suffers from a design problem inherent in the
VW Type 4 engine, where the cylinder head is the weak link in an otherwise
pretty good engine.
The choice between water- or air-cooled engines is kind of a dividing line for
Vanagons. While the earlier engine is not that well suited to the weight and
intended use of the vehicle (my opinion), early Vanagons seem to have beefier
transmissions, and some parts for them can be cheaper (but some can actually
cost more than water-cooled engine parts).
My advice is to figure out how much you can spend. You will be better off
finding a well-maintained air-cooled van in good condition for $3K than a
poorly-maintained water-cooled van in mediocre condition for the same money.
And, when the air-cooled van is running well, it's not really that bad at all.
67hp is not much to work with, but if you don't push it too much, you will get
where you're going.
They handle well, and the air-cooled vans actually can get a tad better gas
mileage than the later ones. They make adequate heat once the engine is warmed
up, although not as good as the water-cooled vans. Plus no cooling system,
power steering or various optional equipment to worry about. They are pretty
simple vehicles. I would look for the best air-cooled example I could find. If
you are looking for a Westfalia, not much changed with the camping equipment
during the entire production run, so again, just look for a good example.
If you decide to go with a water-cooled, the later 2.1 is the way to go, as it
benefits from additional development based on lessons learned with the 1.9. And
it has the most power (95hp) and lots of low-end torque. After driving an '82
vanagon for about 12 years, my '87 feels like a totally different animal.
Dan
bell Atlantic wrote:
> Hey VW Bus fans,
>
> I'm hoping to get a Vanagon, but I keep agonizing over what model year to
> get. I know for watterboxers that I should get the post '96 2.1 litere
> models, but they're kind of pricy still. I saw an as for an '83 air cooled
> Westfalia. I'm tempted, but I'd like to hear how cold and underpowered
> they are so I can be talked out of making an offer :-) I have a '75
> Convertible Bug, so I know about air cooled engines. Thoughts an opinions?
>
> -Bruce
--
Dan
__________________________________________________
Dan Schmitz - Genentech Automation Engineering
djs@gene.com (650) 225-6119
__________________________________________________
"I'll so offend to make offense a skill
Redeeming time when men least think I will"
W. Shakespeare
Henry IV, Part 1
| 
