Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:06:24 -0600
Reply-To: Al and Sue Brase <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Al and Sue Brase <albeeee@MCHSI.COM>
Subject: Re: Van related sites I found interesting - a little off topic
In-Reply-To: <05d9b1817e6d28d67dae777c60a97428@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Sorry, Kim, but I can't agree about the 1500, nor with much of anything
else the Car Talk yokels have to say.
1500:
What is the difference between a 1500 and a 1600? The bore. One set of
pistons and cylinders. And maybe the difference between a -1 and a-2 on
the end of the carburetor number. I think 3 horsepower. If you had a
string of bad luck with a particular engine, I'd say the fault lies in
that particular vehicle, not in the whole engine series. the 1500
engines were used in transporters from 1963 (?) thru 1968 and 1967 and
1968 bugs. Very few impugn 1967-8 bugs as being problematic. I agree
that the single port 1969 and 1970 1600's were nice engines and some
liked the dual port 1971 engines even more. But both 15 and1600's were
quite and improvement over the 36 and 40 hp versions of the 1200,
especially in buses I think VW's original thinking was 100,000km and
throw it away. (That would be 61,000 miles.) They were cheap enough back
in the early 60's, I think about $250, if I remember right.
Micro bus:
As regards the heat, they certainly were not up to the rigors of
American winters, especially on the Great Plains. Most of the early
buses, by the time I owned them or worked on them, needed many detail
repairs including new door gaskets and couldn't even keep out the snow,
let alone the cold.
Handling. Proper tire selection, inflation, and chassis maintenance make
a world of difference. Early busses are still about the best riding,
most sure footed vehicles for poor roads or 3rd world conditions, short
of a 4 wheel drive. And they ride better and are cheaper to maintain
than any 4wd.
The Magliocchi brothers are large car (I'd say, obese car) enthusiasts.
Every car on that list is a small car. I've owned a few and worked on
more. I have different tastes. Their show is entertainment, mostly
humor, not very much science.
Al Brase
Kim Brennan wrote:
> I read their comments on the bus. Sounded spot on to me. Yah, it had
> its good points too (especially compared to the other vans of its era),
> but it's handling in crosswinds was never very good. Our 68(?) had 1500
> engine. A pretty poor engine in VW's history, IMHO. The 1200 or 1300
> was better as was the 1600.
>
> Our 1500 died. My brother rebuilt it, drove to Denver (from DC). Tore
> the motor apart again when he got there, found the valves burning
> (again). Replaced it with a 1600. Last I heard that vehicle was still
> going after 30 years. Not fast, but going, and still with the 1600.
>
> On Feb 23, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Bill H. wrote:
>
>> The other got me upset. It was a site called Car Talk and they had a
>> list of
>> the "Worst cars of the Millennium" and the Micro Bus came in at number
>> 10! A
>> nasty letter to them is in the works. They even had the nerve to show a
>> picture of a really cute blue Deluxe with it.
>
>
| 
