air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post it here, if it doesn't fit any of the above.

Moderators: User administrators, Moderators

Post Reply
Gary.pb
Posts: 191
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 22:56
80-90 Mem No: 11867
Location: Brighton

air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by Gary.pb »

I have recently sold my 1988 T25 with a dg engine and I'm now looking for another van (see my wanted ad if you have one).

I know very little about the 2.0 air cooled van so just wandered what the noticeable differences are. I have found the dg engine comfortable on the motorway cruising at 65 and returning what I think a reasonable mpg of 25 ish.

How would this differ to a 2.0 are they slower, prone to more problems, more expensive to fix, worse mpg etc. Also If I end up looking at an air cooled van are there anything obvious engine wise to look put for.

Cheers in advance

User avatar
bigherb
Posts: 2427
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 13:50
80-90 Mem No: 5789
Location: West Kent

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by bigherb »

Fuel consumption and performance are about the same unless you drive it hard then the fuel consumption is worse with the air cooled. The air cooled engine is noisier but simpler with less inherent problems and will still run with all sorts of ailments, but some parts prices can be high and some parts unobtainable new and hard to find second hand. but that also applies to early WBX engines. The youngest air cooled engines are over 30 years old and can suffer from people knot knowing what they are doing working on them and making unwise modifications which cost a lot of money to put back to original, but if you get a good air cooled engine they are nice.
1982 Camper 1970 1500 Beetle Various Skoda's, Ariel Arrow

shepster
Posts: 1501
Joined: 12 Oct 2005, 11:14
80-90 Mem No: 1342
Location: Wolverhampton.

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by shepster »

I have a mate with a 2ltr Aircooled and it does pretty much everything my 2.1 will do, he does have twin Dellorto's on though, bit slower on the hills perhaps but nothing too drastic.

Heating can be a bit hit and miss as there are so many bits to the system and many are missing,knacked or seized that getting a good flow of warm air can be a battle.

Fuel consumption is a bit worse, especially if you were getting 25 from your 1.9.

My main advice though would be to find a van with good bodywork as any engine can be sorted or even replaced relatively easily whereas bodywork can run into 1000's unless you can do it all yourself.

Oh, and I think Aircooled look prettier too.
2.1 DJ running on carb and LPG.

User avatar
rainman
Posts: 367
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 20:53
80-90 Mem No: 4142
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by rainman »

mine's a 2L air-cooled and I'd struggle to maintain 65mph , although to be fair I haven't tried. 55 is more realistic and getting up hills is fine, especially if I can get a good run up. No idea about mph, the fuel guage is a bit erratic, but I'd be happy with 25.
1983 2L a/c CU homebrew (ex-Autohomes Kamper)

Tysoe
Posts: 102
Joined: 30 May 2011, 18:47
80-90 Mem No: 9737
Location: Bedford

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by Tysoe »

rainman wrote:No idea about mph, the fuel guage is a bit erratic, but I'd be happy with 25.

You use your fuel gauge to judge MPH? :shock: :run

I'm also in the CU club. I chose Aircooled as i had come from owning beetles and never had an water cooled car before so felt i knew the engine more then if i'd gone for a watercooled van.

55 is more realistic in my van but hills kill it and can go down to as little as 35 if it's a long one! I don't know how typical that is though and as i do more and more of the little jobs it has been getting better.

Dellortos are on my list :wink:

Don't even consider the 1.6
1981 2.0 CU camper

User avatar
rainman
Posts: 367
Joined: 10 Sep 2007, 20:53
80-90 Mem No: 4142
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by rainman »

oops, I meant MPG.
1983 2L a/c CU homebrew (ex-Autohomes Kamper)

User avatar
bigherb
Posts: 2427
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 13:50
80-90 Mem No: 5789
Location: West Kent

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by bigherb »

Tysoe wrote: 55 is more realistic in my van but hills kill it and can go down to as little as 35 if it's a long one! I don't know how typical that is though and as i do more and more of the little jobs it has been getting better.
Not really unless it is a hightop. They are quite capable of over 80mph that's only 4000 rpm in 4th, hills do kill them if you chug along below 60 and the revs drop then you will need third gear. Like all air cooled engines push them a bit on a motorway the warmer they are and all the clearances have close up the better they run.
1982 Camper 1970 1500 Beetle Various Skoda's, Ariel Arrow

Gary.pb
Posts: 191
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 22:56
80-90 Mem No: 11867
Location: Brighton

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by Gary.pb »

Cheers for that. I think what I can take from this is it doesn't really matter if it's a dg or cu engine as performance, reliability and mpg are fairly similar . To be honest I have owned enough old vws in the past to know that the number one priority is to get one which is solid as Mechanicals are easier to sort out than panel work.

I'm off to look at a viking later so fingers crossed. All though It took me 3 months to find my last van because it seems everybody else's opinion of good condition is different to mine :run .

Wish me luck!

Gary.pb
Posts: 191
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 22:56
80-90 Mem No: 11867
Location: Brighton

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by Gary.pb »

I have also seen a nice van advertised that has a 1.9 engine with automatic transmission. I've never heard of an auto t25.

Has anybody else got one of these, what are they like?

User avatar
R0B
Moderator
Posts: 16759
Joined: 07 Oct 2005, 17:33
80-90 Mem No: 864
Location: Cheshire

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by R0B »

I have a 2.1 auto and love it.Its a bit thirstier than a manual,but i dont mind that.Should you ever need a new gearbox,they are a lot harder to source.
2.1 LPG/Petrol Auto Caravelle

bigladwigan
Posts: 58
Joined: 12 May 2010, 21:32
80-90 Mem No: 9504
Location: Newton Le Willows

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by bigladwigan »

I have an Aircooled 2l hight top with twin weber 40s on it. I tow a 350kg trailer loaded to the gunnels. The high top is loaded to the gunnels in fact I'd bet we're carrying 3/4 ton extra and does 55 easily 65 if pushed hills do hurt and fuel economy is low 20s, but I do have a hefty misfire which is in need of attention so it should improve a touch. You can't beat the sound of an Aircooled it makes me grin every single time I start it and the misfire reminds me of world war 2 aircraft so I kinda like that too.

clem
Posts: 104
Joined: 25 Feb 2007, 16:30
80-90 Mem No: 8432
Location: j28

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by clem »

I've just got a dg high top which I pick up this Saturday but I've had a 2.0 Aircooled for 4 years and they do shift when given a bit of boot, I love the sound n lookin at peoples faces when you sat there at 70-80 lol, god if I dint have 3 kids I'd deffo be keepin it, think I've just talked myself into keepin it :rollin
82 Aircooled tintop (gone, never forgotten)
88 trident hightop for sale
07 bmw 118i
06 urban fox

aruntaylor
Posts: 83
Joined: 22 Dec 2010, 13:54

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by aruntaylor »

I have a 2 litre Cu Aircooled 3 speed Auto Karmann Gipsy.
I've had the engine rebuilt by Richard Morena who built it perfectly. It's now a 2.1 running on its original rebuilt Solex Carbs.

It's motors along very nicely. Always starts first time and will happily cruise at 55 pulling the 2.5 ton gipsy and a trailer for miles. It is a mega simple engine. In fact so simple many garages don't know what to do. It took me a while to find a mechanic who had a timing gun! He had to bring it from his uncles shed.

Before the rebuild I dropped a valve seat and sounded like a bag of hammers. It still drove though and it had an unstoppable oil leak from the pushrod tubes. This in turn rendered the rusting exhaust useless and smokey. The exhausts are also integral to the heating so burning oil in the heating smells rank. After spending a lot of money on the exhaust/heating it is still useless.

After the rebuild the new engine broke the rocker bolts so one valve wasn't working. It still drove though!
It also after about 100 miles broke the Autobox differential planetary drives. ( still drove though...)
I had the box done by Cogbox and a diff from California which cost one million pounds...

But.
It's great.
Has a CSP python exhaust which sounds lovely. It stinks of petrol and fumes which is awesome, it marks it's territory and it's pretty cool let's face it...

All in all. CU engines are 30 plus years old ( but extremely cool and the van looks great without a lower grille) so be prepared to fork out but that goes for any t25.

Happy motoring.

getunder
Posts: 1807
Joined: 20 Feb 2009, 19:14

Re: air cooled and water cooled comparisons

Post by getunder »

The declared Horse Power or whatever they measure it in nowadays went up by a considerable percentage when they changed from Aircooled to Water Cooled. You should be able to find out the figures or perhaps somebody could tell us. I believe that the reason is that having reached the limit of Thermal Efficiency the Aircooled could not give any more power by raising compression ratio etc.
Watercooled T25's have a habit of the two long metal cooling pipes rusting through. Mine did and it was quite a Pavlova to change them and expensive though i got the secondhand plastic pipes on E-Bay reasonably cheaply. Posting them could be a problem, mine were delivered by the seller. Metal pipes are no longer available as far as I know.
n.b. If di oing it don't leave antifreeze water lying about as it is very toxic to cats.

Post Reply