Date:         Sat, 5 Aug 2000 17:53:32 -0400
Reply-To:     The Gunnings <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         The Gunnings <ngunn@landmarknet.net>
Subject:      Re: Air vs. Water - pro's and con's
Comments: To: Courtney Hook <chook@nisa.net>

Hello Courtney,  I had to smile when I read your post.  Imagine that, I
thought to myself, someone ballsy enough to come to the Vanagon list asking
for a possible recommendation for an air-cooled purchase over a Vanagon.  I
have never owned an aircooled.  For what it's worth,  I have an 85  1.9 wbx
westy.  It's my humble opinion that this particular engine is a true marvel
of automotive engineering.  Even better than the later version wbxers
(yikes, now I've let the cat out of the bag!)  But, and this is a very big
BUT, but only if you understand beforehand that this can be something of a
quirky engine.  Even more so than most.  If I had any advise for you along
these lines it would be to the effect that if you are a person who is
something of a dilettante, then the air-cooled might be a safer bet.  But
(and this is where the really big BUT enters the picture) but if you have
the capacity to become more than a mere mechanical dilettante and recognize
that to have a good relationship w/ a wbx Vanagon usually takes  more than
that,  you will probably be alright.  More like a mechanical devotee,
instead.  Actually, you probably would not have much of a choice than
becoming something of a devotee, if you buy a wbx.   It can be a large
commitment.  A devotee is to a dilettante is the musical equivalent of an
octave.  Pardon the musical analogy but I am feeling slightly jazzed, at the
moment.  Hope this helps!

Cheers,

David Gunning

Lovell, ME 04051