While, my first response would be 70 hp versus 95 hp.  That is a big one for
me.

On the other hand, it seems like the airheads are a bit easier to maintain,
and the parts more plentiful (since it is basically the same motor used in
the earlier Type 2 buses).  No cooling stuff to worry about, lighter weight,
cheaper rebuilds, etc.

OTH, you will have HEAT in a WBX, that you won't get in an airhead without
diligent maintenance and modifications a la Bulley.
(see: http://www.bulley-hewlett.com/VWindex/)

I have never owned an aircooled Vanagon, but I did have a '72 bay window in
college.  So Cal, so I never needed the heater.  :-)

Brent Christensen
'89 GL Syncro Westy "Klaus"
Santa Barbara, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM]On Behalf
Of Courtney Hook
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2000 1:04 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Air vs. Water - pro's and con's

I'm sure this gets asked at least once a month, but please excuse me, I
don't intend to start any arguments, just want some sage advice from those
that have been there, done that. I'm not a big believer in re-inventing the
wheel. I have the financial ability to purchase either style of Vanagon, but
am wondering what the pro's and con's of Air vs. Water might be. I would
certainly appreciate any advice about which to buy. It would appear that I
can afford to buy up to about an 85 Vanagon up here in B.C. I've seen the
prices ranging from 4500 to 8500 for 80 -85 Vanagons in excellent shape,
body wise.

Please feel free to jump in and tell me about your knowledge and experience.
:-)

Many thanks in advance,
Courtney
         " Canada - The True North, Strong and Free"