Date:         Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:25:41 -0500
Reply-To:     Marc Perdue <marcperdue@ADELPHIA.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Marc Perdue <marcperdue@ADELPHIA.NET>
Subject:      Re: Wasserboxer Reputation  . long
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I have to respectfully disagree with both of you.  First, having owned a 1980
Civic, 1983 Corolla, 1985 Accord, 1986 Civic 4x4 Wagon (yes, you read that
right!), 1989 Civic, 1996 Civic, and now a 2003 Accord, I have to say that their
repair record is FAR superior to that of my 1987 Vanagon and my ex-2000 Passat.
With my Hondas there was never any dreaded head gasket leak problem, no ground
problems, no sensor problems, no rusting control arm, no overflowing gas tank,
no rough idle in cold weather, no overflowing coolant expansion tank, etc.,
etc., ad nauseum.  All I ever had to do, basically, was change the oil, rotate
the tires, do the routine tune-up type service every 30K miles and replace the
tires.  A clutch became routine maintenance at 130K, a transmission at 165K,
never replaced an engine . . . unlike the Vanagon where it is quite common to
have to rebuild the engine at 80-100K.

Whether a vehicle uses fuel injection or carburetion is hardly a measure of its
level of technological sophistication and is certainly no yardstick for
condemning a vehicle in a technology debate.  The fact that a Honda will run
reliably, get great gas mileage, shift and accelerate smoothly, and have sporty
handling all speak volumes to me in terms of their technology.  It doesn't
matter if you put the latest technological bells and whistles in a vehicle if it
won't run right much of the time.

Now, has VW gotten their act together?  I don't think so.  In the 30K miles, 18
months, that I owned my Passat, it ran properly for three out of those 18 months
and I spent more than twice as much money repairing it as I did in the 5 years,
80K miles that I owned my last Civic and three times as much as I spent on my
Vanagon in the same time period.  I had a long talk with the service manager at
the local VW dealership about this and he said that most Passats were very
reliable but that some of them had an inordinate number of electrical problems
that were near impossible to fix.  So, is my car a lemon?  Who knows?  Is it
representative of the state of VW's cars today?  No, not necessarily.  However,
EVERY person that I've talked to that owns/owned a Passat said that they had
NUMEROUS electrical problems with their cars.  The fact that VW touts software
as the future of automotive technology concerns me more because they can't even
program a transmission chip properly for an automatic transmission.  Even when
my Passat was running properly, it had a noticeable delay between shifts that
was irritating at best and dangerous at worst.  My 2003 Accord, on the other
hand shifts almost instantly and smoothly.

Having properly tossed VW on their ear, one would wonder why I have a Vanagon at
all.  Well, my Hondas don't have two double beds, a fridge, running water and a
two-burner stove.  But they've also never left me abandoned on the side of the
road on the way to a festival either.  For the sake of my festival-going future,
I hope VW can pull their head out of their rear-end and design a reliable
vehicle in the T5.  We'll see . . .

Marc Perdue

Jeffrey Schwaia wrote:

> I must disagree about 1980 - 1990 Honda, Toyota, etc. engines being a class
> above the WBX.  The fact that many of these manufacturers where still using
> carburetors during this time frame is enough to condemn them in a technology
> debate.
>
> <snip>
> Viel Spass,
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
> Of Leon Korkin
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:21 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Wasserboxer Reputation . long
>
> Agree with most of your realistic facts post.
> But
> "A well maintained WBX will give it's owner well over 100,000
> >miles of service without any more trouble than any other water-cooled
> engine
> >(e.g., Honda, Toyota, etc.)."
> This is a stretch. Honda, Toyota, Subaru or Nissan engines are class above
> wasserboxer of the era(1980-1990)
> in reliability, quality and longevity. No "dreaded syndroms", endless leaks
> or cheap wiring or plastic there.
> Just sold my old Nissan truck with 180,000 miles on the clock, half of it on
> bad dirt roads.
> Still run like new. In fact this is not unusual. That's what's expected.
> With Vanagon it's luck even if it's well maintained. Cut corner engineering.
> In my opinion result of horrendously incompetent management.
> Good thing VW woke up sometime ago, kicked some asses and was able to revive
> company and
> make it what it is now, well run and competitive and producing good
> vehicles.
> I think VW should never make Vanagons with rear watercooled engine and
> instead
> design Vanagon with front engine right then in 1980. With some real power.
> And never use that ugly Eurovan name.
> Leon
>