Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 1999, week 1)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 5 May 1999 22:47:31 -0600
Reply-To:     "Jon B. Kanas" <kanas@QUALITY.QADAS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Jon B. Kanas" <kanas@QUALITY.QADAS.COM>
Subject:      Water and Air and Vanagons
Comments: To: julio@INTERGATE.BC.CA
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Julio,

In the past 25 years I have owned both aircooled and watercooled VW busses, as well as being the proprietor of a VW service shop for a number of years in the 70's.

The early (pre-72) busses were significantly underpowered for their weight, resulting in premature (60K to 70Kmi) main bearing loosening, which causes low oil pressure, overheating and engine failure. Unlike the later aircooled engines, the type I engine in a bus was much more likely to suffer rod failure than valve problems.

The type4 aircooled engines are a better match for the vehicle weight, and are significantly less failure prone due to excessive stress. The life expetancy of these engines in the much lighter 914 is only slightly longer than the expected life in a bus. The life expectancy is in the vicinity of 100k to 110k miles if properly maintained. Due to the extreme temperatures these engines see, failures of various sealing surfaces are common, especially the push rod and oil cooler seals. While not catastrophic in nature, these leaks are irritating to the average driver and rather expensive to repair. The predominant mode of failure is exhaust valve stem fracture, resulting in a catastrophic failure when the piston strikes the valve head which is now inside the cylinder. When disassembling a typeIV engine, it becomes apparent that the heads are not adequately cooled, particularly when the displacement of the engine reaches 2 litres. Lubricating properties of motor oils begin to degrade at temperatures beyond 240F, and the typeIV engine in a bus frequently reaches these temperatures during extended summer use.

The Wasserboxer engine is a much more complex engine, partially do to the manner in which the watercooling for the heads is implemented. The engine durability is much better because the operating temperature is maintained around 200F maximum, so the engine does not reach temperatures where the oil begins to degrade. Lubrication is maintained, wear is reduced, and the engine lasts longer. Seals and gaskets are not subjected to the temperature extremes which exist in the aircooled engine, and last much longer... particularly push rod tube seals. They are, in fact, less likely to leak. In my experience, life expectancy of the wasserboxer is around 150K miles. At that point the common problem is valve guide wear, with excessive oil consumption as the primary symptom. In these cases, we recommended a complete rebuild due to the duplication of labor costs if a valve job alone was to be performed. In many cases, we also found excessive camshaft wear when the case was apart. I suspect that the material from which the camshaft is machined was not hard enough, since there was no evidence of lubrication problems on the cam journals, only wear on the lobes.

Yes, the wasserboxer is a more complex engine, and there are more parts which can fail. It also has an additional 10 years of mechanical design experience and advances in materials which did not exist when the aircooled engines were built. Overall, I believe that it is a better overall engine than the typeIV engine for use in a Vanagon.

My 1983 vanagon reached 134K miles before I sold it, and was showing little mechanical wear. I have seen others approaching 200K miles which are tired, but still satisfactory. On a long summer trip, the temperature issues are the paramount concern, and the watercooled configuration addresses these problems much more successfully than the aircooled configuration.

We should keep in mind we're discussing vehicles whose overall life expectancy exceeds the industry average by three-fold. For the trip we're been discussin on the list, either engine should perform well if starting out with 60K miles on it. If the engine has 100K miles on it, I would be more comfortable with the watercooled unit, all other things being equal.

I would agree with the people who are telling you to purchase a 1986 or newer Vanagon. For the 1986 model year the engine displacement was bumped to 2100cc, and the water cooling system simplified. It has more power, and there are not as much plumbing to leak. The square headlights are much worse for nighttime visibility than the round ones, but round ones can be easily retro-fitted to the later Vanagons.

Regards, Jon Kanas kanas@qadas.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.