Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:28:38 -0400
Reply-To: ian Butler <ian@BLUEMOON.HPLX.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: ian Butler <ian@BLUEMOON.HPLX.NET>
Subject: Re: Ford Excursion is DEAD ? (longish reply)
In-Reply-To: <20020802101637.20336.qmail@web40109.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, John Dagastino wrote:
We'll cut to the interesting bits to maintain a flame-free debate. :)
> vanagons are a special case.
> vanagons do not have to be just well maintaned, but
> babied and pampered and driven very gently to expect
> any reliability. i think the people who say they get
> [large number here] of miles out of their van without
> any heavy duty maintenance are the ones who are
> really, REALLY gentle with their vans. with maybe a
> bit of verve here and there, but only a bit.
> are there any other VWs that were ever as problematic
> as the vanagon? if there were i don't know of them.
The Vanagon seems to have problems at the same rate as most other vehicles,
except that they can be more irking because they are known design issues.
Head replacement on WBX engines comes to mind immediately. But in my
(admittedly, extremely limited) experience, my bus has been dead reliable
next to any of my previous cars (pick one: '86 Audi Coupe, '77 gas Rabbit)
in part because it's an outdated, evolutionary design. Lots of time to
refine it. Any car has its quirks, and the real troubles seem to be with
what VW decided to add on later (again, watercooling comes immediately to
mind) and not the base design. I even take some comfort knowing that
something's about due to break -- not like my Rabbit, which left me
on the side of the road repeatedly with surprises like dead fuel pumps,
broken timing belts, and miscellaneous electrical failures.
> Such a slow vehicle could only have been acceptable in
> times long passed, when the technology to build faster
> and more efficient vehicles did not exist. i feel that
> even at it's release date that the vanagon was
> technologically obsolete.
The Vanagon was perfectly capable of toodling around on highways at 55mph in
the mid 80's just as well as the fastest V12 Jaguar or Dodge Viper. And as
long as it can keep abreast with freeway traffic, it's fine for street use.
Nobody ever bought a bus because it was fast, and they do take their sweet
time to accelerate. That said, my Syncro has been known to hit (and stay
at) 90mph.
> Save for the fuel injection and power steering, barely
> anything can be said to be modern about the vanagon.
> the body panels of all things irk me the most. makes
> it feel like a tin can. cardboard panels over an empty
> wall. a design more fitting for the old
> twinkie/breadloaf busses. the fact that it began life
> as an air cooled automobile as late as the 1980s must
> tell you that VW did not care about being up to date.
> vanagons even use the same black steel wheels as the
> older busses.
VW's design evolution more or less has kept pace with American machines.
Look at a 1995 Chevy Van -- I bet you couldn't tell it apart from a 1975
Vandura if the two were in the same condition. Utility vehicles don't get
the same evolutionary treatment, and that holds doubly true for a
conservative company like VW.
That said, again, the bus isn't solid or modern? I leaned against mine for
the first time, and was shocked to see the metalwork hold me instead of
flexing inward like on an Econoline.. And modern ... well, you show me
another full-sized van (or minivan, for that matter) from 1986 with
all-wheel drive. :)
Wheee! I love talking. :) Take care everyone,
ian Butler / ian@hplx.net
'87 Syncro GL, '88 Scirocco 16v
