>
> My spouse thinks we need to sell our `87 Westy Syncro and get a `90 or `91
> model instead.  I am not sure that I am onboard with her reasoning as our
> van spent its entire life from new until 3yrs ago in California.  The engine
> has 160lbs compression per cyl., the transmission is from Daryl and only has
> about 5,000 miles, there is no rust or sign that it has ever been wrecked,
> and while it has a few minor issues that I am working on, don't they all?

Heh. Cue the traditional "time to find a new wife" responses.
Really, there's absolutely no significant advantage to a 15-16 year old
Vanagon over a 19 year old one, particularly when the 19 year old one is a
former California vehicle. DOUBLE particularly when it has a transmission
with 5K miles. TRIPLE particularly when it's "the devil you know" rather
than a new-to-you vehicle that has who knows what done to it by some dumbass
previous owner. You should ask her what she thinks can be gained by getting
a slightly newer, decade-plus year old car. If she's hoping for better
reliability, remind her that Vanagons are more about mileage & maintenance
than age. Cosmetically, appearance has more to do with environment than just
age. You can find rustbucket 91's from the salted-roads northeast, and
pristine 80's out here in the dry desert southwest.

Sounds to me like you have a peach of a Syncro. I'd hold on to it. The
amount of money you'd have to pour into a "new" 91 to get it where your 87
is now (how much is a rebuilt Syncro tranny?) might be enough for new paint
and upholstery in your 87.
--
John Bange
'90 Vanagon - "Geldsauger"