Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 18:38:05 -0400
Reply-To: Jonathan Poole <jfpoolio@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jonathan Poole <jfpoolio@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Need Reassurance on 82 Westy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
It sounds like this mechanic is not one that you want to hire to do work on
your air-cooled vanagon. It's subjective to say that one year is better or
worse for the Vanagons. You can successfully argue the point for almost
every year and variant of the Vanagon and with each difference there are
benefits and costs. The 82 and 83 Air-cooled vanagons have a very similar
interior to all later vanagons westies and in almost every respect are equal
to the later model vanagons. I prefer the 82-83 interiors in a few ways,
like the mostly metal dash etc. You're really splitting hairs on most
points outside of the engine difference though.
I've had two air cooled vanagon westys and they have both been great. They
are very low maintenance and economical. Performance wise they are
satisfactory. I almost never am in a situation where the horsepower is a
problem. There are times when I wish I could accelerate faster like getting
up to speed to merge into fast traffic. On steep hills I have to slow down
some but I've spent most of my driving time in mountains and it hasn't
really been an issue. Driving at high altitude slows things down some too,
but it hasn't really been a problem. When you do the math on how much extra
drive time you will have as the result of going 5 to 10 mile an hour slower
it isn't that big of a deal, as long as you can drive safely in traffic. In
many ways the acceleration etc. of an air cooled van is comparable to 1.9
and 2.1 water-cooled vanagons and also to that of 18 wheelers/semis and they
do fine.
Reliability wise, my air cooled engines have been great. You must tune them
properly and keep them in good condition. They aren't going to take the
abuse of dirty oil, awful tuning, and general neglect that some water cooled
engines are but if they are dialed in and you keep an eye on them they do
great. I have a few extra temp guages and they let me know when I'm pushing
it too hard or when I need to reset the points and timing. I also have an
external oil cooler that helps with summer time highway driving and enables
me to keep the oil temp below 220 farenheit. My head temps stay near 350
degrees all the time as long as the engine is well tuned.
Some of the benefits of air cooled vans are that you don't have to worry
with the water cooling system and all of it's plumbing and other
components. This makes a big difference in a car this age as many of the
water cooling components will need to be watched or repaired unless they've
been recently replaced. It also seems that many people have to reseal their
waterboxer heads well before the engine needs a rebuild and this compares in
my mind to the fact that even a top notch air cooled engine is probably not
going to run at full performance as long as a waterboxer would due to the
higher operating temps. In other words a waterboxer may need a head reseal
and an air cooled may need a ring job at 70k miles or so. Of course this is
different for everyone but still good to keep in mind when operating
original vanagon engines.
I could go on and on but I'll finish by saying that I'm really pleased with
my air-cooled vanagon and would choose the air-cooled variety over the
waterboxers every time. I may move to a conversion in the future in order
to drive something more efficient and modern but it will have to be a good
option to rival the simple and enjoyable air-cooled powerplant that my
vanagons have had.
On engine sources, I have a Boston Bob rebuild and I had Bob do whatever he
could to make the engine as good as it could be. My last vanagon engine was
a good runner but there is a noticeable difference in power with this Boston
Bob powerplant. Of course Bob is no longer with us, but if his successor is
building comparable engines then they are worth a look. There is also a guy
named Jake Raby (I think) that operates under the Massive Type IV title or
something like that who also seems to really know his stuff. He seems
capable of building a great type 4 in either a stock or performance
variety. I'd also recommend that you get invovled as much as you can with
the engine transplant so that you can learn to take care of the engine
yourself. Also, consider solid state electronics for the ignition system so
that you don't have to keep a close eye on points and tuning..
Oh yeah, and if the van is really rusty then the guy may be right,, it might
not be worth fixing. Not because of it's year though,, simply because rust
is hard to fix right.
Good luck
Jonathan Poole
'83 AC Westy
"I just purchased a 82 (coming from my 72 Bus) figured air cooled was the
wa=
y to go=2C less part to get screwed was my theory. I will be needing a new =
engine and was told by a reputable VW mechanic that I pretty much bought th=
e worst years for the Vanagon. The air cooled ones are the worst and I shou=
ld sell it and buy and watercooled. That he can do the rebuild but will cos=
t about $6500 to get is squared away and even then dont expect the Vanagon =
to last long=2C plus the Cali smog is herendous.=20
=20
So I guess I dont really have a question=2C I just want to hear that it wil=
l all be ok=2C or is this guy right?!?! My 72 runs great and drive it campi=
ng everywhere=2C up and down hills no problems=2C cruises at 70 mph=2C and =
is teh same base engine as the 82 so dont know what to think. Figured I was=
finally able to afford my Popo Top and will be keeping it for life to take=
teh family camping=2C with a new baby I needed the room.
=20
Oh and does anyone know of any good places to go for a rebuilt engine that =
wont rip me off and do a good job in San Diego.
=20
Thanks for any thoughts."
