do they overheat more easily, e.g. at 100F, in 2nd gear up a steep
grade?

aaron
'87 syncro gl

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
Of Zoltan
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:58 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: More Reliable: Air or H2O

I had them both.  The AFC has far less parts that makes it requiring
less repairs.
The H2O has its little advantages but much more sensitive and needs more
knowledge to keep it going.
Typically, when I was planning to go up to the Arctic Ocean North of
Canada, I opted for the AFC model and had no trouble at all, but one
flat tire.
Also about as desolate a place when touring in Europe, in terms of
getting your car fixed, the AFC is a much more user friendly unit.
Simplicity is invited over some small advantage to gain reliability.
In fact, even between the H20 units, the 1.9 has better lasting engine,
albeit less power.
Still, most of us use 2.1L H2O units with all the upgrades and options
we can get.
We like the challenges of these beasts.  They are easily reparable, it
is our advanced mechanical toy we like to take apart and put together.
They are also the proof of our good work and we are the mechanics on
board.  It is making good sense to know as much as you can, in
economical and practical instant self defence.
Zoltan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Mayrand" <jmayrand@METROCAST.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 1:07 PM
Subject: More Reliable: Air or H2O

> OK, a recent post got me to thinking, and this may have already been 
> discussed, but I was too lazy to check the archives...
>
> Which is more reliable, the AFC or H2O cooled Vanagon?
>
> I have an AFC, and is is spot on reliable - in fact it starts better 
> than my Toyota truck some days. All I need to do is keep the oil clean

> and cool. No water system to fail. Yes, it is slow, but...
>
> Other opinions?   ...JMM