Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:41:33 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Turbovans <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Low compression, more test results-busaid inying used vans!
In-Reply-To: <CAFnDXk0hb-5Ohouq8t1seD2K9m8s_g5VpKB2=od-PJH=KSXZgA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
lol...
About 'vanagons not being common' ...
depends on where one is.
There are TONS of vanagons in the West Coast States..
I guesstimate that just in the Rogue Valley ( medford-Ashland,
southern oregon ) that there are at least 150 vangons..
even 200 to 250. Heck, I have 20 of them in my possession.
Any time I go out it's likely I'll see several.
There are many hotspots.
The Northwest ..Portland - Seattle.
Many in California, Colorado, and so on. Texas, not so much. Same for
Florida, Ohio etc.
We can look up the sales numbers in the US.
Tons of 84's where sold for sure. I would guess that more 84's were
sold than any other year.
There are a lot of 85's too.
Then when Sycnro's and 2.1 waterboxer engines kick in in 1986 ..
seems like they sold a ton of those.
I see few 88's and 89's ..
I see more 90's and 91's than 88's or 89's.
I see a lot of 87's ...kind of a favorite year of mine too.
yeah, some body get the US sales #'s for vanagons ..1980 to 91.
There's a hellava lot of 'em counting all models.
I regard the Vanagon as the Best Overall VW every made,
the most versitile, well-made, useful, etc. etc..
all the various attribues that vanagons are known for ..good handling,
plenty of room inside on on top of 'em, good ground clearance, easy to
work on, not crazy complicated ..plus a whole huge world-wide family of
owners.
For sure, 'the cooling system' .....defenitely a huge number of parts
involved, spread from one end of the van to the other ...
Yes...they do take special care and understanding,
and yet ....many of them operate for years and years with few problems.
Proactive care helps of course.
Waiting until something fails is just an awful way to take care of a
Vanagon.
in my mind, the air-cooled engines, the stock diesels, and the
waterboxer engines are all weak in a few fudnamental ways. VW's inline
foru gas engine is pretty good. Very durable, Inexpensive, easy to work
on., has a 'real' head gasket..
isn't prone to wearing itself out like diesels so badly are ...
the waterboxer is definitely weak with its joke head gasket system, yet
we get along with those pretty nicely.
and ...on ALL engines .....that's the one part that gets a lot of
stress. It's not uncommon for subaru engines to need head gaskets,
..they all usually do by 100,000 miles ..
It seems to me that more compact engines with cast iron blocks
..inline fours for example, have the best head gasket life, generally.
Waterboxers are just fine .....with some reservations..
they could use more power ..
they have the head gasket issue ....
and the fuel injection can be a challenge for people and shops at times ..
but overall ....fantastic vehicle.
and there are thousands of them around. I have 7 for sale even. lol.
'bad engine' - look how many vanagons get other brands of engines ..
and none of those are quite 'perfect' in my opinion either.
Better in many ways ....still with issues now and then or
characteristics that could still be better.
we love these fine machines for sure.
And if they didn't need attention like they do we might not be talking
to each other like this.
Scott
www.turbovans.com
On 9/8/2012 11:14 AM, Jim Felder wrote:
> With all due respect to your particular experiences, the statement that the
> Waterboxer wasn't meant for continuous duty would be news to the thousands
> of owners with 20+ year old Vanagons. They never sold really well to gein
> with, so they are not common, and neither are people who know how to work
> on them. But somehow in the Darwinian automotive universe, they have
> survived like very few other cars with a network of suppliers and
> specialist to keep them going. Only a tiny percent have some other kind of
> engine in them besides a 1.6 diesel or a Waterboxer. I'd say it is a
> remarkable package if kept in good shape. What ends up getting the
> Waterboxer is not so much thrown rods or dropped valves but death by
> overheating. The cooling system is complex and extensive (not to mention
> its length) and the opportunity to leak are numerous. On a scale of finicky
> to bulletproof when it comes to surviving an overheating event, I'd give it
> a 6. Not great, not terrible.
>
> If it were such a bad engine, we wouldn't be here. I have noticed that
> lately there seems to be a rash of failures, but look at the age on them.
>
> Jim
>
>> I'm done with the WBX, it isn't designed for continuous duty.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
>> Of Dave Mcneely
>> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:54 AM
>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Re: Low compression, more test results-busaid inying used vans!
>>
>> How many of us, except for those who are able to do all the work on their
>> vans themselves, don't have a $20k (or more) van? Wife and I now call ours
>> the $1M van. Even those who do the work themselves, if they put in one of
>> the engines sold by rebuilders, end up with a figure something like you
>> mentioned. Take a look at Larry's RoadHaus van payout, and that was 10
>> years ago and doesn't include maintenance since. mcneely
>>
>> ---- Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> As I have said in the past the most important part of purchasing a
>>> used vehicle is to find out why it is/was for sale. For some reason
>>> the past/current owner no longer wants it!
>>>
>>> Since you only had this a few months you now know one reason. I doubt
>>> this "just" happened. Depending on what you paid and how you go about
>>> the conversion and then all the other stuff to follow you too may soon
>>> have that $20K Camper.
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Stuart MacMillan
>>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:52 PM
>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>> Subject: Low compression, more test results
>>>
>>> Well, for those who have been following by email thread about making
>>> the mistake of checking compression on my 140k mile original engine
>>> (90-150-100-130) I’ve done some more tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Valves were zero lash or 1 turn in, no valve noise, timing dead
>> on
>>> 2. Manifold vacuum is 12” Hg with ±1” tick (should be steady 17-21)
>>>
>>> 3. No detectable vacuum leaks (propane test), all vacuum hoses new.
>>>
>>> 4. 22% leak down on #1, could hear leakage all three places, but
>>> exhaust and intake were louder than the dipstick, with the exhaust
>>> being the worst. (Should have used the decibel meter on my iPhone,
>>> but I didn’t want to get it greasy ;-) ). Didn’t bother testing the
>> others after this result.
>>> 5. Does not burn oil (in 1000 miles at least) Plugs that came in
>> it
>>> were clean.
>>>
>>> 6. PO installed reman AFM recently
>>>
>>> 7. Idles smooth (as any of them anyway), runs well, no coolant
>> leaks,
>>> but has poor acceleration and poor gas mileage (~15 mpg highway).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like it’s got some leaking valves. No surprise this rig is worn
>>> out, I assumed it was, but I could drive it home at least. I hope I
>>> can get a few thousand more miles out of it so I can save some dough for
>> a conversion!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes ignorance is bliss, but never for long. I waited until
>>> after my planned summer trips to check the engine condition, so I was
>>> blissfully ignorant on purpose. I’m still planning a couple of fall
>>> trips nearby though. What the hell, I’ve got AAA premier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> ’85 Westy, purchased in May
>> --
>> David McNeely
>>
| 
