Skip to main content
Gerry | Vanagon
Checking account...
← vanagon.com home · Continue the discussion in the forum
Subject:Re: Sick sick sick of diesel Vanagon cooling problems
From:Ralph Meyermann
Date:Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:11:11 -0600

Hopefully that's all it is! How do you like the turbo diesel? Besides the
cooling issue anyway.
On Dec 11, 2015 9:55 AM, "Jim Felder" <jim.felder@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think so. Will be able to test this afternoon after a cool down.
>
> Jim
>
> > On Dec 11, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Ralph Meyermann <ralphmeyermann@GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
> >
> > Has this issue been resolved?
> >> On Dec 10, 2015 3:53 PM, "vw_van_fan_Mark" <madvws@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim, I'm not saying that will fix all your problems but it is a place to
> >> start.
> >>
> >> All Vanagon cooling systems use the top of the tank as the collection
> >> point for air and then it gets pushed out through the cap over time. The
> >> water pump is supposed to draw coolant from the bottom of the tank. The
> >> way it is now the waterpump is drawing from the top of your tank, where
> >> any air would be, the opposite of how VW intended.
> >>
> >> Finally, the vendor confusion is understandable. There are 2 very
> >> different tank/hose configuration used in our diesel vans. When people
> >> with the earlier 81/82 system need a new tank they commonly use the
> >> 86-91 waterboxer tank since it matches up better with their 81/82 hoses
> >> and slight mods. Not so for people with the rarer 83 and newer diesel
> >> vans. Those people can use the 83-85 waterboxer tank and the 83+ diesel
> >> hoses fit it fine, without mods. Most vendors will have dealt with the
> >> more common 81/82 situation and thus may steer an 83 customer the wrong
> >> way without knowing all the differences.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim Felder wrote:
> >>
> >>> Glad to hear it, mark! I'd rather it be that than just about anything
> >>> else.
> >>> Thanks for catching.
> >>>
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:49 PM vw_van_fan_Mark <madvws@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jim, you have the wrong tank, I can see that in your photo. You need
> the
> >>>> other waterboxer tank (1.9) 84-85. It would work with that new lower
> >>>> hose you thought was wrong. That new hose was actually right and
> didn't
> >>>> need the mod you made to it......
> >>>
>