Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:16:11 -0400
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: Re: vanagon difficulty
In-Reply-To: <13303155.8200.1252002585274.JavaMail.mcneely4@127.0.0.1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:29 PM 9/3/2009, Dave Mcneely wrote:
>So, the replies that attempt to refute my statements are from mechanics
>(or really accomplished diy types, but many are pros). Others are from
>folks who realize the difficult nature of the vehicle, but are willing
>to accept that for the reasons I cited earlier (and which were my
>reasons for wanting one.
ISTM that this is really a matter of different definitions of what
constitutes "difficult" and to some extent "reliable" -- for example,
if an old Toyota with 200k on it blows up a transmission, it's pretty
likely that the owner will just toss it because he can probably get
another one for less than it's worth to mess with it. I'm pretty
sure that no-one has suggested that someone coming to a Vanagon
thinking that it can be fixed most anywhere by most anyone isn't
going to have some unpleasant surprises. I suspect that's true in
some countries, but it surely isn't here.
>the statements from mechanics, though intended by their authors to
>refute my position, in fact, reinforce it, because they describe the
>necessity of being personally knowledgeable of mechanical details for
>this particular vehicle that the average knowledgeable driver hasn't
>time to learn. they also describe the necessity of devoting oneself to
>the vehicle, rather than to its use.
I think that's a fair statement, if you don't carry it too far.
>I don't have a lift at home, and certainly don't carry one with me camping.
Hey c'mon, be reasonable. Nobody else does either, except
shops. I'd love to have a pit/lift but it's never gonna happen. And
the height of the beast (except the lower/lowered ones, I guess)
means you can get entirely under it without even jackstands, which
are the ordinary man's $20 answer to a lift. And even with the lower
ones you can drive one side onto a handy curb and get underneath.
> I don't own the "average"
>set of tools that one poster referred to
I haven't seen that post, can't comment...
>What I want is to know that every time I get in the vehicle, to drive 50
>or 5000 miles, I can rely on it getting the job done without having to
>worry or more particularly without having to be broken down in Big
>Tittie, Nevada.
That depends a lot on the definition of "rely" I think. And notice
that CU doesn't rate reliability on cars over five years old, unless
they've changed recently; because in their opinion maintenance level
swamps engineering differences after that. I think that when you
start looking at 20-y/o vehicles that may not be entirely true, but still...
Personally I drove Dutiful Passage ~150k (miles) to a total of around
235k, and I'd be driving it now if circumstances hadn't forced me to
let some rust get out of hand. I didn't have AAA and I never
hesitated to drive it any distance, any time, without concern about
reaching my destination. I didn't drive it out in the wild
outback. I carried a fairly basic set of tools and a few spares with
me. I never failed to get where I was going, never had to have it
towed but spent some time beside the road a few times normally
(possibly always) in a convenient place and time of my
choosing. Most of my hassle was with exhaust stuff in our salt
environment. It was a 1.9l and I used to drive it on the highway
routinely at 85 mph; and somewhere around 150k I needed an engine
rebuild on that account. If I hadn't run the thing practically
full-bore for hours and hours at a time at high rpm it would have no
doubt lasted longer -- it's a small motor pushing a big truck. In
context -- when I was a kid, every passenger vehicle on the road
needed a rebuild by 60k and ones that were on the road beyond 100k
were pretty rare. It wasn't all that long ago that they put the
fifth wheel on the odometer...
responsibilities to do that -- I have not spent an idle life, and
>despite the tone that comes through from some posts, not being an expert
>mechanic is neither due to laziness nor stupidity, nor is one less than
>a worthwhile person who lacks that expertise.
I think, and I certainly hope, that you're misreading that. Unsuited
to a Vanagon and unworthy of a Vanagon are not the same things at
all, and I've never seen any snobbery of the type you mention.
>You are right, I don't love these vehicles enough to devote my life to
>becoming a vanagon mechanic. that seems to be what is required.
mezzo-mezzo. A degree of interest, attention and knowledge well
beyond the average sit in it and go driver is required, or this list
wouldn't exist.
>So far as the vehicle being worth $15k as one poster claimed: Mine is
>extremely "clean," as good mechanically as any, chassis with 145k miles,
>2.1 engine with 28k miles. I overpaid for it in April, as Kelly and
>other values place it, in excellent condition, below what I paid (but I
>wanted it and it probably is better than average), and nearly $10k below
>the quoted $15k. I've spent about $9k on repairs, minor body work for
>dings, tires, and minor upgrades to make camping nicer (example,
>mosquito screen for the slider, which I installed).
If it needed $9k in repairs since April then it very obviously wasn't
in excellent condition, wouldn't you say?
It's entirely possible that, counting tools, I put $9k into Dutiful
Passage during the ~15 years/150kmiles that I owned her. Can't be
sure since I didn't keep track that closely. And I let a little rust
problem turn into a big one and ruined her, but mechanically she was
in really very good shape except for rusty brake lines. I wouldn't
have expected any major expense for many thousands of miles. And Ben
Huot certainly could have saved her without even noticing, judging by
some of the pictures he's shown us.
But $9k right off the bat is bound to leave a bad taste, f'heaven's sake.
>I'll say no more on this subject, as obviously those who consider their
>vanagons to be a means of keeping themselves busy repairing them for the
>sheer joy of it know more about my needs than I do.
Oh, David...I think this has been a fascinating and valuable thread,
and I'm very grateful to you for starting it. *Please* don't feel
pinched by what's been said. Please.
By the way, where are you?
Best Regards,
David
--
David Beierl - Providence RI USA -- http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'89 Po' White Star "Scamp"
