Actually I would have preferred one due to its simplicity.  Case in point,
if you consider the posts over the last 4 weeks, a significant portion of
them have been regarding difficulties with dealing with the cooling system
in the water cooled vans.  I ended up with a water cooled van because:
1.) the price was right ($750)
2.) the body is in excellent shape for a 1984 due to being in Arizona all
its life and the engine was rebuilt about 35,000 miles ago
3.) Most of the air cooled vans on Ebay that were within driving distance
of Maine (didn't know about Samba when I bought my van) were rusting
pieces of crap with engines that needed rebuilding or more money than I
wanted to spend.

Our only new vehicle was a 1977 Wolfsburg edition van purchased right of
the showroom floor in Fall of '77.  We drove it out to Illinois in the
summer of '79 and never had any trouble keeping up with traffic, with 5
adults aboard.  Except for the heater boxes and tube it was a great van.
Drove it 100,000 miles and it still ran great when we sold it in 1986.

Best Regards
Howard Allen
S. Portland, Maine

JordanVw@AOL.COM
Sent by: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
10/25/2005 09:50 AM
Please respond to JordanVw

        To:     vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
        cc:
        Subject:        Re: in the year 2015......

In a message dated 10/24/05 4:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Greg@pottsfamily.ca writes:

> I would think
> that the aircooled vanagons could outlive the waterboxers.
>
> Sure, they're slower, but that too works in their favor: they're less
> likely to be driven into the ground.
>
>
>

but nobody wants them!!   :<)

chris