Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:22:01 -0400
Reply-To: Dennis Haynes <dhaynes@OPTONLINE.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dennis Haynes <dhaynes@OPTONLINE.NET>
Subject: Re: More Reliable: Air or H2O
In-Reply-To: <42F1F87A.3010302@fyi.net>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Was this an accidental re-send! I'm sure I answered it. There is
customers van here now with 217K on it. Original engine, transmission,
and Viscous coupling. We are getting it ready for a trip. The trans
sounds like it is approaching the end of the line though.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
Of Eric Zeno
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:14 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: More Reliable: Air or H2O
It turned 224K on
that trip. The engine has never even had the heads removed.
TIme to fess up here.... HOw many of those
224k miles are from being towed behind your motor home?
ERic
Dennis Haynes wrote:
>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. You knew 65 was top speed on
>a good day, down hill. Of course it was relatively inexpensive to fix
>but engine durability was not there. My 70 was slightly better. I had
>and worked on many VW's during those years and made a fair amount of
>money rebuilding engines.
>
>In 85 I purchased a used 84 Vanagon. 3 years later I realized the
>advantages of preparing for a trip to include an oil change, check the
>belts and tires, then go. This was a marked improvement over the pre
>trip valve replacement pray while you drive there. Real heat and AC
made
>the day.
>
>The next van was the Fun Bus. A 1987 Syncro Westy we purchased new. 2
>weeks ago I made a 900 mile round trip to Western PA. It turned 224K on
>that trip. The engine has never even had the heads removed. I had no
>trouble keeping up with traffic except for a few hills on 80. Still
able
>to do 70+ and get 16+ mpg. I wish the tranny has been as durable.
>
>There is no doubt the water cooled has more parts to cause grief. This
>is addressed with proper maintenance. Regular inspections is the key to
>success. Next is that repairs are done properly.
>
>There are many who have had success with the Air Cooled engines but I
>remember when VW quickly offered the Diesels in a desperate attempt to
>sell something. Many Air cooled engines didn't make it through warranty
>and the warranties were only 2year/24K back then.
>
>Dennis
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
>Of Justin Mayrand
>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:08 PM
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: More Reliable: Air or H2O
>
>OK, a recent post got me to thinking, and this may have already been
>discussed, but I was too lazy to check the archives...
>
>Which is more reliable, the AFC or H2O cooled Vanagon?
>
>I have an AFC, and is is spot on reliable - in fact it starts better
>than my Toyota truck some days. All I need to do is keep the oil
>clean and cool. No water system to fail. Yes, it is slow, but...
>
>Other opinions? ...JMM
>
>
>
>
| 
