---- Tom Hargrave <thargrav@HIWAAY.NET> wrote:
> With any engine it's better to downshift & bring the RPMs up than lug the
> engine.
>
> So, based on this I'd "assume" that it would be better to downshift and take
> the shorter steep route.

Hmmmm.  I would assume that anyone taking the longer more gradual route would still use the appropriate gear and RPMs for the climb, and thus not lug the engine.  In other words, the alternatives you propose are not the ones I would consider.  And for me, it would depend on how much difference there was between the two inclines.  If one was steep enough to require first gear, I would almost certainly take the less steep route.  I probably would also consider how long I'd have to be downshifted, so if the climb was very long even in second, I'd probably take the longer route.  But I'd have to drive both to know for sure what my choice would be.  If lugging is a necessity on one route, I'd take the other.  mcneely
>
> Tom
> www.towercooler.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf Of
> Mark L. Hineline
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:55 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Climbing
>
> If you must climb 1000 feet in an aircooled Vanagon, is it better for
> the life of the engine to take the long and gradual route? Or to
> downshift and climb over on the short but steep route?
>
> Mark
> 1982 Westy

--
David McNeely