Date:         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:44:01 -0600
Reply-To:     Simon <simon@FARRSIDE.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Simon <simon@FARRSIDE.NET>
Subject:      Re: WBX bashing
In-Reply-To:  <OF93F3F839.C0FADF45-ON85256C07.0051D063@LVS.DUPONT.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Yes, thank you for repeating yourself!
If you'd bothered to read MY post, you'd have noticed that I actually
complimented my own "worn out" engine!
The point of my post was that, while examples of WBX longevity exist,
they are the EXCEPTION. My complaints about the wasserleaker are
strictly related to the apparent  lack of engineering
finesse/talent/karma/whatever.


On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 09:06  AM, Jay L Snyder wrote:

>
> Talk to some of the original owners.  A lot of you are buying worn out
> vehicles and then complaining about problems.  I didn't know how
> terrible
> these things were until after I joined this list!  The '86 I purchased
> new
> had over 138,000 miles on it when I sold it and it still ran great.  I
> changed the oil regularly, along with the coolant, trans oil, fuel
> filters,
> etc...  I only sold it because I had just bought an '85 camper.   Many
> VW
> owners are cheap.  They scrimp on maintenance.  This '85 was not looked
> after.  The motor was shot at 125,000 miles.  I am amazed it lasted this
> long.  The problem was not the head gaskets, Vanagon syndrome, or the
> P-rated tires!  Low oil pressure was its demise.  The simplest of all
> maintenance items--regular oil changes.   These vehicles are "cockroach"
> tough if you look after them.    How many '85 Chrysler mini-vans are
> still
> on the road?  I am looking forward to at least 150,000 miles from my new
> Boston Bob engine.
>
>
> Jay
>