Date:         Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:40:35 -0400
Reply-To:     The Bus Depot <vanagon@BUSDEPOT.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         The Bus Depot <vanagon@BUSDEPOT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Advice on possible engine replacement
In-Reply-To:  <E1EDNjK-00081q-53@matt.xitocreations.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 1. Fix the existing wasserboxer - Replace the engine the
>  first time the repair costs you more than $100 - $200.

I must be missing your point here. This $100-200 figure seems highly
improbable.  Internal engine failures are expensive. I can't imagine any
internal engine failure costing under $100-$200 to fix (unless you are
talking about parts only, without factoring in labor time/expense). Anything
that would cost in that range would likely be external (i.e. a water pump,
coolant hose, etc.). Why replace an engine just because something like that
failed?  By comparison, an internal failure (i.e. head gaskets, rings, etc.)
would probably cost $1000-plus if you were paying to have the labor done.
This might be cause to consider engine replacement if the existing engine
has high mileage, low compression or oil pressure, or other signs of wear. 

> 2. Replace with yet another wasserboxer - Really bad idea

I disagree. As you said, you are assuming that the owner has to pay labor on
the engine conversion. Between the engine and labor, an engine conversion
would likely cost two or three times as much as a stock wasserboxer
replacement. (I am assuming an apples-to-apples comparison here - rebuilt
engines in both cases. Comparing a rebuilt wasserboxer to a used conversion
engine is not a fair comparison, as used engines of any make/model have
their own inherent risk.) Is it worth it the large additional cost? That's a
personal choice, but the decision is not nearly as clear cut as you make it
seem. 

Personally, I opted for another wasserboxer when my originals failed in my
last two Vanagons. (I put AVP rebuilds in each.)  My reasoning: The main
flaw of the wasserboxer is a tendancy toward head gasket failure as the
engine approaches 100,000 miles. (And some don't fail even then.) For what
it would cost me up-front to do an engine conversion, I could do a head
gasket job every 8 years or 100,000 miles for the next couple of decades,
and still have money left in the bank. In fact I'll probably never spend
that much, because by the time the odometer approaches 350-400k miles I'll
have almost certainly replaced it with a lower-mileage vehicle anyway. Also,
who is to say that the the alternative engine would have lasted an equal
amount of time without needing any signfiicant repair itself?  Maybe it
would, but perhaps not. Most engine conversions out in the field don't have
that kind of mileage yet, and it remains to be seen how they will fare over
the very long haul pushing something as heavy as a Vanagon. 

It is true that the wasserboxer is not as powerful as some other engine
options, which is another argument for conversion for some people.
Personally this is not a huge issue to me. My Vanagon is a barn on wheels,
and nothing is going to change that. With the stock engine it can
comfortably handle highway speeds on all but the most prolonged steep
grades, and that is all I need it to do. It's a camper, not a sports car.
Even with more horsepower, it still would have cornering, braking, and
accident avoidance capabilities that are only sufficient for its intended
performance (and upgrading these areas involves significantly more expense).
So I opted to stick with stock, but go with a fresh rebuild rather than a
used engine of unknown reliability so that I'd get that 100k or so before I
needed the next head gasket job.  I have never regretted that decision.  


Of course others may feel differently, and they will have equally valid
points depending on their priorities and their chosen engine.  No single
alternative matches everyone's needs, priorities, or wallet.  My point is
that far from being a "really bad idea," the decision to keep it stock is in
fact the most logical choice for many Vanagon owners.

Finally, I'll add another alternative, as it is a low-cost upgrade, and that
is replacing the '83-85 1.9L wasserboxer with a rebuilt 2.1L wasserboxer.
AVP (and I presume other rebuilders) can build a 2.1L engine using a 1.9L
block, making it a drop-in replacement for the 1.9.  The result is a
slightly more powerful engine with absolutely no additional labor
time/expense. This is arguably a worthwhile upgrade. The performance
difference is not dramatic but it is noticable (particularly during hard
acceleration or prolonged hills with the A/C running).

- Ron Salmon
  The Bus Depot, Inc.
  www.busdepot.com
  (215)  234-VWVW

_____________________________________________
Toll-Free for Orders by PART # :  1-866-BUS-DEPOT