Date:         Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:09:02 -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

You know, Jeff, you keep being the squeaky wheel yourself saying that people
aren't paying attention to what you said:
"This was not about Toyotas..." and "if you had bothered to read my complete
post, you would have figured out that I was not knocking Hondas or Toyotas, I
was comparing the WBX to other water-cooled engines."  Yet, in your first post
you said "I must disagree about 1980 - 1990 Honda, Toyota, etc. engines being a
class above the WBX."  People can only respond to what you ACTUALLY SAID, not to
what you MEANT.  Now, to change the playing field and bring Yugos and Fiats into
the mix, well, you can always improve your statistics by comparing the
wasserboxer to something that is worse and we can always run down the
wasserboxer design by comparing it to the best-designed engines out there, i.e.,
those of Honda and Toyota.  But you're right, what difference does it make?
None, really.  The Vanagon Westfalia is, after all, in a class of its own.  If
it weren't, I wouldn't own one because of all of its mechanical problems.

It's also pretty easy to come up with one's own statistics to support whatever
argument they're making.  For instance, your Honda has left you stranded and
your Vanagon hasn't.  In my case, none of my 6 Hondas has left me stranded
(one's really too new to count though), but my one Vanagon has . . . twice.
Furthermore, as I said, EVERY person that I've talked to (quite a few, but I
don't have an actual count) that owns (owned) a Passat has had a significant
number of problems with their vehicles, whereas almost every person I've ever
talked to that has a Honda and/or a Toyota has had very few major problems with
their vehicles.  This, to me, starts to look statistically significant, but it
can't really be unless I were to put together a truly objective survey and get
out there and survey a meaningful number of people; ergo, this whole comparison
is pretty much pointless.

Others are probably correct in pointing out that a vehicle broken in and
maintained properly will have fewer problems over its lifetime.  Perhaps my
Hondas were well cared for by their POs and my Passat wasn't.  I don't know.  I
do know that every car that I bought new WAS properly broken in and maintained.

Further, Barry Muller made some good points about the seats and the sheetmetal
in Hondas . . . they are crap, but we were discussing the quality of the
engines, not the rest of the vehicle.  Rebuilding a carburetor at 90K, however,
would probably generally be considered routine maintenance.  I know it's a bite,
mine cost about $400 on one of my Hondas.  However, the 60K service on my Passat
included servicing the fuel injection system in addition to the normal tune-up
stuff.  That service cost me over $600.

You also seem bent on telling everybody that complains about the Vanagon's
problems that they should buy something else, like a Toyota camper or a
Winnebago.  That's not offering a valid alternative.  The Vanagon camper is,
despite its mechanical flaws, an ingenious design in terms of efficiency.  There
are very few alternatives that pack the same kind of camping gear as well into
such a compact design that can also serve as a daily driver.  Most of the
Winnebagos that I'm familiar with are either duellies or have three axles.  This
configuration dictates where I can and can't camp at most festivals, leaving me
stuck out in the sun with all of the big trailers and RVs with their generators
and air conditioners running all night and their satellite dishes bringing in
whatever NASCAR race is on that night.  Unh unh, not for me.  Further, the
Winnebago designs, which I believe the Toyota uses (?), are not as nice as the
Westfalia (in my opinion).  Speaking of which, it's not VW at all that makes the
best feature on our campers, it's Westfalia.  Too bad Westfalia doesn't make a
camper version of the Sienna . . . I would buy one in a heartbeat.

Finally, all the squeaking I could possibly do didn't get me anywhere with the
VWOA service rep. regarding the problems I had with my Passat.  He wouldn't
guarantee that they could fix it.  So, I'll continue squeaking until VW sits up
and listens and gets the point.

Squeak, squeak said the wheel that NEEDED grease . . .
Marc Perdue



Jeffrey Schwaia wrote:

> Squeaky wheels get the grease...
>
> I'm sure we can find just as many Honda owners with horror stories.  Wait!
> I just found one... it looks like me standing on the side of the road!
> Anyways, that's for a different forum.
>
> All I was trying to say, is that a "correctly" rebuilt and maintained WBX
> motor will not experience any problems that couldn't be expected on other
> water-cooled engines during the course of the engines lifetime.
>
> I wasn't trying to single out Hondas or Toyotas as "bad" vehicles, I just
> picked two makes.  Please edit my previous post and change Honda to Fiat and
> Toyota to Yugo.
>
> Perhaps a nice Winnebago...
>
> Viel Spass,
>
> Jeff
>
>