Date:         Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:50:22 -0400
Reply-To:     Westywoman <westywoman@mac.com>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Westywoman <westywoman@mac.com>
Subject:      Air vs. Water: I've Gone Both Ways (F)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In this recent debate about air-cooled Vanagons vs. water-cooled Vanagons,
someone said:

> how about 65 hp vs. 95 hp for starters?
Who said bigger is better?  "It ain't the meat, its the motion".  Isn't that
always the excuse, uh, I mean, rationalization?  Let me tell you from
experience, the motion here is not that different; in both cases, it's slow
and steady.  Eventually, you get there.  To whatever climax you had in mind
for your trip;-)

> The waterboxer is more refined.
Well okay, if Ralph Lauren appeals more to you than Willie Nelson, I'm with
you there.  But ol' Willie has a lot more soul than Ralph, and probably
costs less to maintain and entertain.

As for me, I've gone both ways, so to speak, so perhaps I am one of a
handful of ultimate authorities on this list ;-).  I used to own an '85
waterboxer(6 years), and experienced the highs and lows of its ownership.  I
now own an '81 airbox (2 years), and, so far, there have been very few lows.

To me, I don't think it matters much which way you go, as long as you love
your Vanagon and cherish it till death do you part!

--
Melissa Mourkas
81 Westy Basic Camper