Date:         Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:12:11 -0700
Reply-To:     mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: any years / models we should avoid
Comments: To: wilden1@JUNO.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

They say ignorance is bliss so Stan must be in Nirvana. The watercooled
are head and shoulders above the aircooled in many respects. Most
aircooled Vanagons suffered expensive engine failures are much lower
miles than waterboxer do. Plenty of exceptions I'm sure. The late 85 to
87 are the best value for the money. I sold my first 86 at 285k miles,
still running strong.

Mark

Stan Wilder wrote:
>
> In keeping with my 'Friday Flames' early posting habit; I'd say avoid
> anything with a Water Cooled engine.
> That means the best Busses / Vans / Vanagons would have been made between
> 1950 and 1983 in Air Cooled version.
> The air cooled have less power but engine rebuilds are about half the
> cost of a Wasser Boxer engine.
> I've gotten 150 K miles out of the 2000cc Type IV air cooled with very
> few problems.
>
> Stan Wilder
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:20:53 -0400 Chris S <mrvolkswagen@HOTMAIL.COM>
> writes:
> > > Are there any years / models that we should avoid??
> >
> >  The very early (83.5) H20 WBX had some rare coolant hose
> > configuration.
> > Otherwise, '85 and down are more affordable, and '86 and up have
> > more
> > 'modern' features.  All else would be up to your tastes.
> >
> > Drive what you love -- all else comes second.
> >
> >