I thought we were discussing VW vans, not just engines. I've owned
dozens of VW vans from split windows to Syncros. Aircooled 1.5, 1.6,
1.7, 2.0, water cooled 1.6, 1.9, 2.1, diesel, turbo diesels, and more.
I've taken 500+ mile trips more than 100 times on both aircooled Type IV
engines and waterboxers for combined driving of over a half million
miles on my VW vans. I am comfortable will all of them. I prefer 2.1
waterboxer models if we are sticking to stock choices. The vehicle as a
whole is BETTER for DRIVING. More power, better ride, better brakes,
better heat, better A/C, power steering. The late 85 is almost as good
as it has numerous improvements that were phased in during that model
year. I am talking about which one is better to OWN, not which one do I
find it easiest and cheapest to do engine work on. That would be the
diesels, hands down.

Mark

David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, mark drillock wrote:
>
> > They say ignorance is bliss so Stan must be in Nirvana. The watercooled
> > are head and shoulders above the aircooled in many respects. Most
> > aircooled Vanagons suffered expensive engine failures are much lower
> > miles than waterboxer do. Plenty of exceptions I'm sure. The late 85 to
> > 87 are the best value for the money. I sold my first 86 at 285k miles,
> > still running strong.
>
> I think we all tend to prefer the engines we're most comfortable with.  If
> I were going to get a gasoline Vanagon I'd be tempted by the aircooled
> models just because there's less to go wrong.  That rat's nest of cooling
> hoses and fracture-prone plastic fittings in the Wasserboxer engine bay
> would haunt my dreams.
>
> I had a '75 bus with a Type IV aircooled engine, and my only quarrels were
> with the exhaust, the fuel injection system, and the lack of heat.  The
> engine itself seemed pretty sturdy.  (The lack of heat was mostly because
> the heater boxes and flapper boxes were completely rotted out.)
>
> David Brodbeck, N8SRE
> '82 Diesel Westfalia
> '94 Honda Civic Si