Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:12:10 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Felder <jim.felder@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Early Instrument Cluster Difference Questions + PICS
In-Reply-To: <29729490.15360.1256517892771.JavaMail.mcneely4@127.0.0.1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I think they thought they were doing a very good thing when the
produced the waterboxer. I think the head gasket problems were a
surprise. And I sure don't think there would be people trying to drive
them into the next century as we have done. From their perspective,
they were producing an adequately-powered, great-driving truck chassis
that would give a good ten years service. They didn't get what was
going to happen to the market, that anything that didn't go way above
highway speeds wasn't going to sell, and that the station wagon was
going to get a huge engine, four-wheel drive, and be marketed so
successfully to the American public as the SUV. They got blindsided by
all that. Who would have predicted otherwise in the late seventies?
Sure I buy the fact that the Japanese were making better engines and
that the waterboxer was already a dinosaur, but VW had gotten away
with things like that for thirty years and it didn't seem to matter to
their buyers.
I'm sure glad they were dumb enough to produce the Vanagon, though.
Ours will outlast almost all the junk that killed it, right?
Jim
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@cox.net> wrote:
> Hmmmm. So, the story about management giving engineering a few months
> to turn the air-cooled engine into a water cooled one, thus accounting
> for the bizarre heads and extremely complex coolant circuitry is not
> true? If it was originally planned to be water cooled, why didn't they
> do a better job? I am not speaking as one who is expert on engines, but
> simply took from some folks whom I respect greatly who say that it is
> not a good design. Most folks on this list seem to agree with that
> regarding the heads and gaskets.
>
> David McNeely
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:36 PM, neil n wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:19 PM, mark drillock wrote:
>>>
>>> VW knew the Vanagon was going to be mostly watercooled from the start
>>> and
>>> designed for it in advance. That is why there is room for a radiator
>>> even in
>>> the first year of aircooled. The diesels are watercooled and they
>>> went into
>>> production during the 1981 model year, sold as late 81 in other
>>> markets.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Mark. For sure. That much I was aware of. :)
>>
>> I guess the way the holes in the plastic were configured is mostly
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Were there diesel or WBX gauges that mounted to this 3 hole
>> configuration?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yhreorm
>>
>> Couldn't find pics of coolant temp gauges on BD or VC's websites.
>>
>> Neil.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Neil Nicholson '81 VanaJetta 2.0 "Jaco"
>>
>> http://tubaneil.googlepages.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/vanagons-with-vw-inline-4-cylinder-gas-engines
>
|