On Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:54:12 CDT William R. Kennedy said:
>I feel any perceived longevity advantage of early buses over Vanagons is
>due to low cost of engine replacement.  A sick sixties bus can be healthy
>again for a few hundred dollars.  When a Vanagon goes down, it stays down
>unless a pretty substantial investment is made.  The Vanagon body, I think,
>stands up to rust better.  Cloth interior gets raggy faster than vinyl,
>but a nice cloth interior is nicer than any vinyl interior.
>Interested in other opinions about best bus for the long term.

yup. and cloth is much cooler (to the backside) than vinyl ... of course,
a nice sheepskin cover makes everything wonderful again. ;) even on cloth!

what i dislike most about the later buses is the carpeted floor. i realize
that this helps muffle road noises, but i really miss the rubber mats that
my 80 bus had.

best bus for long term? hmmm. that's a toughie, but i think i'd pick the
80-82 air-cooled buses ... as they have most of the advantages of the
vanagon, and fewer of the vanagon's liabilities. yes, it still has the high
cost of body parts and suspension parts. but that would be my pick.

now, if we move up to a slightly higher plane of financial existence, :)
i'd pick the 86-91 buses. but then, i'm getting older and us older fahrts
like our comfort ... and the later buses are more comfortable.

but all in all, i think that each year has its own delights and quirks that
endear it to certain people, so it's hard to pick any "best" bus for "all"
of us; we each have to find our own "best" bus.

hell, i still miss my old Number One, my first bus, the 1971 Blue Goose. :)
but i wouldn't trade my air-conditioned, 90-horsepower vanagon for it!! it's
just that i had a helluva good time in that old bus, and it is forever linked
to those good times. and it gave me VERY little trouble as a car.

joel