Date:         Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:54:51 +0800
Reply-To:     Kim Howe <khowe@OMNINET.NET.AU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Kim Howe <khowe@OMNINET.NET.AU>
Subject:      Re: Longevity of Conversion Engines
In-Reply-To:  <112.eb8c73c.29d091a4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 10:43 PM, KENWILFY@aol.com wrote:

> Comparing a 1600cc air cooled engine to a water cooled engine is not a
> fair
> comparison as far as I am concerned.  Air cooled engine tolerances are
> not as
> tight because they can't be due to expansion issues, and air cooling is
> not
> as efficient, hence shorter engine life.

Aircooling is more efficient, no pumping losses, lower thermal mass.
Basic physics.

> I don't want to offend the air
> cooled folks out there.  If you love your van, enjoy it.  But a
> watercooled
> engine will last longer and have more horsepower while giving out less
> emissions (that's why they stopped making Air Cooleds).  It is just a
> fact.

No, it's just an opinion, and a wrong one at that. Beetle engines last
as long as Golf engines, and Type IVs last as long as Wasserboxers (or
longer). Air cooled engines are more difficult to engineer, you can't
just add a larger radiator and an extra fan to get rid of more heat. The
extra engineering means additional expense, so being driven by the
dollar like everyone else, VW now makes watercooled engines.

Kim Howe
khowe@omninet.net.au
82 Aircooled