Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:35:40 -0500
Reply-To: John Anderson <vwbus@MINDSPRING.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: John Anderson <vwbus@MINDSPRING.COM>
Subject: Re: Complaint Dept (engine swaps, reliability, whining)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>and are. Despite the unreliablility of my Vanagon (My second '87 and my
>second to have leaking heads due to a previous owner using the wrong
>anti-freeze. Is this stupid design or what?) it is probably the most
As is well established, has not a thing to do with it, using a phosphate
free is simply VW's out. I have a '87 changed every 2 years, blue stuff at
the dealer, lasted 89k. Simply poor engineering, never believe anything
else, the pliable seal combined with porous cast aluminum heads is doomed
for crevice corrosion, possibly enhanced by poor grounding but I've put a
megger between the block and heads individually and seen very little
resistance, cause I conjectured the ground strap fix on the list 2-3 years
ago, but every little bit helps.
Why did VW do this BTW, to be cheap, they were fudging in order to maintain
low tolerances on their parts. The pliable seal avoids having to maintain
exacting tolerance control on the length of the liners, deck height, and the
block to cylinder jacket relative depth. These got to be close to maintain
CR, but not so close to maintain a perfect "crush" on a standard head
gasket, let alone account for expansion of the engine (never VW/Porsches
strongpoint) In the engineering world there is a direct and perhaps
exponential relationship between tolerance and price, the reason all mass
produced engines are produced to a wide factory range and most by the luck
and laws of statistics fall into a good band with only the occasional dog or
wonderful factory runner. The occasional dog that by mishap stacks up all
to one side of the tolerance band has to work as well, and a fudge solution
like a big pliable seal makes it. Subaru obviously made better parts, but
not always, look at the crank to pulley attachment on a first generation
Subaru plant, and all those early poor turbo experiments, and give VW a bit
of a break, Subaru has 25+ YEARS into the water cooled 4 cylinder opposed
design, VW orphaned it after 10. So what, why it's in there is TORQUE, and
balance that were/are not available in the inline 4 of the time (1600cc in
'83 boys and girls), why those wonderful SA vans favor a 2.2 or bigger Audi
5 cylinder (a great motor in nearly any form, particularly turbo 20V
iterations). Who knows had VW not been heading for a certain grave (still
might be) in the late 80's maybe they would have tried another iteration and
been up to the reliability of the current Subaru 16V mill (a great
powerplant, I've seen one torn down at 200k miles by a friend interested in
their longetivity before he put one in a Longeasy.) As it is the Vanagon
died, the engine with it, just as a couple generations before it had, the T4
really isn't a lot better in a heavy van people, just a few more of them out
there initially so slightly more of an aftermarket. Anyway enough of a
tirade, be happy, if you aren't change, if you still aren't go buy a nice
reliable Caravan, AstroVan, whatever, may not prove much better but parts
will be cheaper.
John
vwbus@mindspring.com
| 
