Date:         Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:14:31 +1200
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: More Reliable: Air or H2O
In-Reply-To:  <698D2FE331FC794BB994CD03DFB28589010DF84D@gmgexdc02.iogmg.ioroot.tld>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>do they overheat more easily, e.g. at 100F, in 2nd gear up a steep
>grade?

No water to leak out or boil... thermostat to fail... I have to say
they my aircooled vans' engines (Types 1 & 4) were great, and
performed very well (though the US seems to received badly-detuned
versions). Got virtually no maintenence (valve adjustments? Nah!) and
just went and went, despite often being revved way past the redline
in daily use. I could RELY on them NOT to break. Only the 1.2s in my
57 gave any trouble, and that was usually my fault (dribving it at
70mph and forgetting to top up the oil as it leaked out) and ONCE
dropping a valve.

>I think people confuse reliability with durability or quality. These are
>all very different characteristics. When I had a 67 bus, it was
>extremely reliable. You knew that you would drop an exhaust valve
between 50-60k or any long trip in summer.

Of course reliability means not only a degree but the direction...
1-100%, good to bad. An engine that is extremely likely to throw a
rod is very reliable... but not the kind of reliability you'd want!

>Still, most of us use 2.1L H2O units with all the upgrades and options
>we can get.
>We like the challenges of these beasts.  They are easily reparable

Yep... toss the dud wasserleaker/crankencasenventer away and install
the new soon-to-be-dud... or fit a decent engine (nonOEM).
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut

HUMANITY: THE ULTIMATE VON NEUMANN MACHINE

DEMOCRACY: RULE BY THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR