Date:         Wed, 27 Sep 1995 15:09:11 -0600 (MDT)
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Jack Reed <jackr@fortnet.org>
Subject:      Re: 71 in hand vs. Vanagon in the bush

Steve,

On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, Steve Tokar wrote:

> Besides the fact that repairs are a lot more expensive, what else would I be
> in for if I went with a Vanagon? What's the repair record and maintenance
> schedule?  How reliable is it? Is 83 the least problemated year for the
> air-cooled? (Don't want a waterboxer.) We like to go on back roads in the
> desert, and I'm nervous about taking a vehicle that can't be patched
> together with duct tape like the 71 (I'm not a mechanic but I do have Muir's
> Idiot Book).

Several differences to note right off.  You'll have to learn about fool 
injection as well as acquire the VW manual since Muir doesn't cover 
vanagons.  The manual is 8 1/2 x 11 and about 2" thick.  They run ~$90 
from the dealer but can be found for less.  I got mine off the net for 
$20 from someone that had sold his van.

You're right to stay away from the water-cooleds, at least until you 
learn about the potential downsides and what to look for.  Keep reading 
the list for stories about leaking head gaskets, fights with VW to fix 
the problem, outrageous repair costs, etc.

My van, an 81 Westy, has been very dependable with the exception of 
normal wear and tear items such as the starter, a broken clip in the 
tranny that no one else seems to have experienced, the dreaded VW 
ignition wire syndrome, etc.  All easily fixed by your normal shade tree 
mechanic.

What you get in increased power and size you lose in greater systems 
complexity.  So everything balances out in the end.

Good luck with your search,
Jack