Date:         Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:41:06 -0800
Reply-To:     Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator
              <owner-LISTSERV@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
Comments:     RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
              ignored.
Comments:     RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
              ignored.
Comments:     RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
              ignored.
Comments:     RFC822 error: <E> Mail origin cannot be determined.
Comments:     RFC822 error: <E> Original tag data was -> ldd.net (Ronald V.
              Clayton)
From:         Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator
              <owner-LISTSERV@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Subject:      Re: bad engine survey
Comments: To: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hellow to the List:

I've been following the "Ex... bad engine" thred from digest mode and I
would like to add my experience with two Vanagons to Ron Lussier's survey.
I have owned two Wasserboxers, each bought new, but each has it's own
distinct story.

I bought an '84 Wolfsburg which was my first Volkswagon.  It sprung head
leaks at only 18K miles, VW fixed them and the fix was good for 120k when
the van devloped auto trans problems, by then the engine was beginging to
show signs of wear but no leaks.  I traded the '84 in on a new '91 in '92,
now 102K miles and never a leak.  I think that the 2.1 engine and digi-fant
FI are a significant improvemet over the earlyer engine, not just for
torque but over al performance.

For what it's worth I think factory specified maintainance and careful
driving habits ie. a short warm up and gradual accelleration/decelleration
are prudent driving whatever the vehicle.  While the '84 always felt a
little under powered, the '91 has all the power I will ever need.
Conclusion: the Wasserboxer, like many VW innovations, began as an
experiment and evolved into a highly efficient and reliable mechanism...
which requires prudent use and careful maintainance. When the '91 engine
finally wears out I will replace it and keep on driving.
If I were still driving the '84 I might be tempted to upgrade to a 2.1
engine but that is as far as I would go vis-a-vi engine swaping.  I do not
mean to Imply that everyone who has problems with the wasserboxer has been
guilty of Vanagon abuse, DPO's do some damge that does'nt show up until
down the road and also S--t just happens.  And clearly, the earier engines
had design flaws.  When you think about what a wasserboxer actually is, an
airplane engine encased in a water baloon, it's pretty amazing it works at
all.  And when you look at the overall improvement that the Vanagon
represents over the air cooled busses, it seems that re-doing the heads
every 100K or so miles is an acceptable down side.
Just my opinion of course...

Ron Clayton
'91 Vanagon GL
Cape Girardeau, MO
Artist/Professor.............. catch my work at Gwenda Jay Gallery in Chicago,
                               or Phillips Gallery in Salt Lake City, UT