Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:06:51 -0800
Reply-To: "Backus, Brian G" <Brian.Backus@PSS.BOEING.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: "Backus, Brian G" <Brian.Backus@PSS.BOEING.COM>
Subject: Re: bad engine survey
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I have a 86 Westy and really wish I had more power. Gettng into traffic
sometimes can be a little squeamish. I actually got hit one time and
did $4500 damage because "I thought I could make it". I always invision
myself being the guy behind me that had some guy that pulled out into
traffic only to take a couple blocks to get up to speed thinking, "what
an asshole, I wish he'd get with it". I don't have that problem at all
with my 93 Ford E-350.
But yes if you are patient and are not living in the Seattle area, you
should have no problem getting into traffic with a Vanagon.
If you think that 100K or about 70,000 Miles is an exceptable amount of
mileage you must have deep pockets. But you are right about the
evolution of the engine. I wish they'd take the Wasserboxer one more
step and fix what problems that do exist and improve on some others.
(Like horse power) Instead of giving us a "EuroVan that does not
interest me one bit just like the "new Beetle". I'm afraid that VW has
lost me as a new car buyer because they really don't make anything
anymore that I feel is any better than what we make here in the USA.
Oh you might ask, "what am I doing driving a "93 E-350 Ford? Yes it
only gets 12 MPG at best. Yes, it has not even come close to the
practicality of the Vanagon. Yes in a lot of ways, it isn't even close
to the vehicle that the Vanagon is. But, it has got all the power I
could dream about, it will hold my whole family comfortably ( I have
four kids) and still carry all t groceries, camping gear, etc...I have
the Chateau package which is top of the line interior package. Vw has
nothing that compares with the luxury of this Ford. And some of you
might say so what. I still ask myself the same thing. But I do enjoy
driving the Ford. The interior sound level is much quieter, the stock
stereo (I don't even have top of the line) cranks. It's got front and
rear heat and A/C.
The Vanagon is such a neat little package. But it does lack a lot of
what I have been raised to expect from a vehicle here in the states.
I'm German, but hey I've been raised here in America.
Brian G. Backus
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.
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
> ----------
> From: Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV
> administrator[SMTP:owner-LISTSERV@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]
> Reply To: Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 11:41 PM
> To: Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: bad engine survey
>
> 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
>
| 
