Date:         Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:35:40 -0400
Reply-To:     David Brodbeck <gull@GULL.US>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Brodbeck <gull@GULL.US>
Subject:      Re: any years / models we should avoid
In-Reply-To:  <3F0AD13B.1DB0D6E4@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, mark drillock wrote:

> 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.

I think we all tend to prefer the engines we're most comfortable with.  If
I were going to get a gasoline Vanagon I'd be tempted by the aircooled
models just because there's less to go wrong.  That rat's nest of cooling
hoses and fracture-prone plastic fittings in the Wasserboxer engine bay
would haunt my dreams.

I had a '75 bus with a Type IV aircooled engine, and my only quarrels were
with the exhaust, the fuel injection system, and the lack of heat.  The
engine itself seemed pretty sturdy.  (The lack of heat was mostly because
the heater boxes and flapper boxes were completely rotted out.)


David Brodbeck, N8SRE
'82 Diesel Westfalia
'94 Honda Civic Si