Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:42:59 -1000
Reply-To: "SDF ( aka ;jim lahey' - Scott )" <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "SDF ( aka ;jim lahey' - Scott )" <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Organization: Cosmic Reminders
Subject: Re: difference's between model years
In-Reply-To: <CAHTkEuLZCuhmgAZUMaFNGtSvw6sY+MpP_CapeVF5vJ-aS-dqpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
well yes, if you are averse to say ..power steering ..
you'll always have non-power steering in earlier van . ( PS started in
84 Wolksburg I think ).
Most 85's have PS.
I doubt you;d want an auto trans considering the fuel milage penalty.
I manage to get decent miles out of my rigs ..
but an 85 with 2.1 engine and auto trans would not do over 16.5 mpg
driven 'nicely' on the freeway,
and in the winter, on short in-town trips, it was 14 mpg . Dang. ..not
acceptable.
plus you can't roll start them ..
or keep going with one gear not working, etc.
I aim for KISS whenever practical.
On 9/27/2014 4:21 AM, Don Hanson wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:39 AM, SDF ( aka ;jim lahey' - Scott ) <
> scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> The short version and bottom line is,
> 87 is the first year with 'all the important changes finally done.'
>
> t
>
> Somewhat off the original posters question, and a personal opinion
> only________
>
> If there was a basic 84 in perfect shape and a 91 in perfect shape with
> all the bells and whistles, side by side, there for my choice...and I
> didn't have to think about reselling eventually and both had identical
> aftermarket conversion engines...there would be no hesitation on my part,
> I'd take the 84 in a heartbeat.
>
> As has been mentioned on this thread, weight and systems-complexity
> increased as the model years progressed. I don't find either of those
> desirable at all----- quite the contrary for me. I looked for quite a
> while to find a van without the bells and whistles.
>
> One of the main reasons I like Vanagons (the old ones) is their very
> simplicity, their bottom-line utility. I find driving them is fun
> because they are light and nimble for a van, and I feel like I am actually
> involved in the process of guiding it through the countryside. I like
> being able to maintain them with very basic tools or complete most repairs
> on my own no matter where I am and without maxing out my credit card..
>
> I suppose that if I lived in a metro-area and did mostly city and
> freeway driving I might prefer to be less "involved" with my driving
> environment...Automatic shifting, AC, power windows, power steering, fancy
> stereos, power locks...all those widgets, those are probably desirable
> there, but I prefer not maintaining those systems nor carrying the weight
> around every day in my van.
>
> When I hear of grinding up a grade in second gear with one eye on the
> temp gauge, oil light glowing and the heater on to lower coolant
> temps...then I question the value of all the extra stuff in the
> vanagons...Of course, a well maintained one with a newer motor or a
> conversion, one with all the systems working perfectly, AC blowing cold,
> Cruise Control driving, video on in the backseat for the kids, heading to
> The Lake, or wherever...who could fault that?
>
| 
