Date:         Thu, 9 Oct 2003 01:57:40 -0400
Reply-To:     "Rob S." <iH8myISP@SUSCOM.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Rob S." <iH8myISP@SUSCOM.NET>
Subject:      Rebuild?  was: Model/year recommandation
In-Reply-To:  <007a01c38e1c$9cb65790$a2a37fd8@DCW2YJ21>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

What exactly goes wrong that requires every vanagon to have an engine
rebuild done around 100K miles?

My 82 is original un-rebuilt motor (as far as I know)   and it runs out
VERY strong.

with 92,000 and a broken odometer...   should I be ready to spend for a
rebuild soon, regardless of how good it runs now?

should I not fix the odometer so that it never reaches that dreaded
100K mark (where the engine will instantly destroy itself)?

-Sealover


On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 12:19 AM, Art McGinn wrote:

>   jp: as a longtime bus owner and later a vanagon owner, i have a very
> strong bias against the water-cooled vanagon and a very strong
> preference
> for the air-cooled van, although the latter are getting harder to
> find. the
> waterboxer (water-cooled) has inherent heating problems, as most the
> posts
> on this list indicate. an air-cooled  vanagon in reasonable shape with
> a
> recently rebuilt engine and a recently rebuilt transmission (rebuilt
> engine
> is necessary since the most recent was new in 1983) could run for many
> years
> with minimum trouble if reasonably maintained. good luck on whatever
> you
> choose. cheers, art mcginn, san fran, '82 westy (ex-'82 vanagon,
> ex-'68 bus)
>