Exactly.

I love the rest of the car, and the camper, enough to put up with the motor.
I did not say Westfalia, because the first WBX I had` was an ASC camper.  I
am still not sure which I prefer after two more westies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Perdue" <marcperdue@ADELPHIA.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Wasserboxer Reputation . long

> You know, Jeff, you keep being the squeaky wheel yourself saying that
people
> aren't paying attention to what you said:
> "This was not about Toyotas..." and "if you had bothered to read my
complete
> post, you would have figured out that I was not knocking Hondas or
Toyotas, I
> was comparing the WBX to other water-cooled engines."  Yet, in your first
post
> you said "I must disagree about 1980 - 1990 Honda, Toyota, etc. engines
being a
> class above the WBX."  People can only respond to what you ACTUALLY SAID,
not to
> what you MEANT.  Now, to change the playing field and bring Yugos and
Fiats into
> the mix, well, you can always improve your statistics by comparing the
> wasserboxer to something that is worse and we can always run down the
> wasserboxer design by comparing it to the best-designed engines out there,
i.e.,
> those of Honda and Toyota.  But you're right, what difference does it
make?
> None, really.  The Vanagon Westfalia is, after all, in a class of its own.
If
> it weren't, I wouldn't own one because of all of its mechanical problems.
>
> It's also pretty easy to come up with one's own statistics to support
whatever
> argument they're making.  For instance, your Honda has left you stranded
and
> your Vanagon hasn't.  In my case, none of my 6 Hondas has left me stranded
> (one's really too new to count though), but my one Vanagon has . . .
twice.
> Furthermore, as I said, EVERY person that I've talked to (quite a few, but
I
> don't have an actual count) that owns (owned) a Passat has had a
significant
> number of problems with their vehicles, whereas almost every person I've
ever
> talked to that has a Honda and/or a Toyota has had very few major problems
with
> their vehicles.  This, to me, starts to look statistically significant,
but it
> can't really be unless I were to put together a truly objective survey and
get
> out there and survey a meaningful number of people; ergo, this whole
comparison
> is pretty much pointless.
>
> Others are probably correct in pointing out that a vehicle broken in and
> maintained properly will have fewer problems over its lifetime.  Perhaps
my
> Hondas were well cared for by their POs and my Passat wasn't.  I don't
know.  I
> do know that every car that I bought new WAS properly broken in and
maintained.
>
> Further, Barry Muller made some good points about the seats and the
sheetmetal
> in Hondas . . . they are crap, but we were discussing the quality of the
> engines, not the rest of the vehicle.  Rebuilding a carburetor at 90K,
however,
> would probably generally be considered routine maintenance.  I know it's a
bite,
> mine cost about $400 on one of my Hondas.  However, the 60K service on my
Passat
> included servicing the fuel injection system in addition to the normal
tune-up
> stuff.  That service cost me over $600.
>
> You also seem bent on telling everybody that complains about the Vanagon's
> problems that they should buy something else, like a Toyota camper or a
> Winnebago.  That's not offering a valid alternative.  The Vanagon camper
is,
> despite its mechanical flaws, an ingenious design in terms of efficiency.
There
> are very few alternatives that pack the same kind of camping gear as well
into
> such a compact design that can also serve as a daily driver.  Most of the
> Winnebagos that I'm familiar with are either duellies or have three axles.
This
> configuration dictates where I can and can't camp at most festivals,
leaving me
> stuck out in the sun with all of the big trailers and RVs with their
generators
> and air conditioners running all night and their satellite dishes bringing
in
> whatever NASCAR race is on that night.  Unh unh, not for me.  Further, the
> Winnebago designs, which I believe the Toyota uses (?), are not as nice as
the
> Westfalia (in my opinion).  Speaking of which, it's not VW at all that
makes the
> best feature on our campers, it's Westfalia.  Too bad Westfalia doesn't
make a
> camper version of the Sienna . . . I would buy one in a heartbeat.
>
> Finally, all the squeaking I could possibly do didn't get me anywhere with
the
> VWOA service rep. regarding the problems I had with my Passat.  He
wouldn't
> guarantee that they could fix it.  So, I'll continue squeaking until VW
sits up
> and listens and gets the point.
>
> Squeak, squeak said the wheel that NEEDED grease . . .
> Marc Perdue
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Schwaia wrote:
>
> > Squeaky wheels get the grease...
> >
> > I'm sure we can find just as many Honda owners with horror stories.
Wait!
> > I just found one... it looks like me standing on the side of the road!
> > Anyways, that's for a different forum.
> >
> > All I was trying to say, is that a "correctly" rebuilt and maintained
WBX
> > motor will not experience any problems that couldn't be expected on
other
> > water-cooled engines during the course of the engines lifetime.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to single out Hondas or Toyotas as "bad" vehicles, I
just
> > picked two makes.  Please edit my previous post and change Honda to Fiat
and
> > Toyota to Yugo.
> >
> > Perhaps a nice Winnebago...
> >
> > Viel Spass,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >