Our 72 was dual carbs and we loved it. Our 77 was an early FI pancake
engine.
Our Vanagon was also a rear-engine vehicle with the same engine as the
77, just
made with cheaper stuff. Compared to the 77, the 81 was TACKY. Stuff
fell off it.
Maybe your vanagon was a front-engined water-cooled version??? Never did
try one of those. Our 81 cured me of VW forever. Crappy build quality,
useless
customer service, and really expensive parts. Not the same company that
built
and sold us the 72 and the 77.
Since then, we've had Hondas, along with the Midget and the Alpine of
course.
(BTW - my wife's 97 Civic has all of 40k miles, which might give you a clue
as to how much we drive the Brit cars.
chuck
Bud Osbourne wrote:
> Sorry to hear of your negative experience. However, your experience is
> NOT typical, or normal for the Vanagon. I mean, the Vanagon (like any
> other mass produced automobile) is not entirely without faults.
> I find it interesting that you loved your '72 and '77 so much, yet, the
> part that broke on your '81 is no different than what your '72 and '77
> were equipped with (if I understood your description correctly). I
> mean, all three of the model year Type 2s you owned used the same basic
> engine (VW Type 4), with the same basic fuel injection system.
> I just love my old, crusty looking '85 Vanagon.
|