> But using your engine as a braking mechanism wears your engine out faster,
> so I would imagine that replacing your brake pads is a lot less expensive
> than replacing your engine?
>

Click and Clack, for all their sneering at Vanagons, like to make the very
good point that brakes are FOR braking, and brake pads are replaceable for
cheap. Transmissions and engines, not so much. I think YMMV on this quite
widely, though, depending on what and how you drive. My boss, annoyed with
having to change brake pads on this 9800lb Chevy van every 2000 miles (the
brakes were totally inadequate for the van, newer vans had larger brakes),
and started downshifting instead. His pads were lasting almost 6000 miles
for a whole year, until the transmission crapped out. Downshifting to slow
down a 5-ton van? Apparently not so good. On the other hand, I had a '78
280Z I downshifted constantly, weighed something like 2800lbs and had a
monster of a 5-speed manual transmission and an iron-block inline 6 engine.
In 6 years and 80,000 miles I changed brake pads twice and never had the
slightest indication of drive train wear.  Clearly a Vanagon falls somewhere
in between those extremes, but it's hard to say where. Vanagon drive train
is probably weaker than  that in either a Chevy van or an early Z, but then
again Vanagons don't usually weigh 10K pounds, nor are Vanagon drivers
likely to  slow down from 120mph by downshifting and dropping the clutch...

--
John Bange
'90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"