Club 80-90 Forums

Simon Baxter wrote:If air cooled was so good they would still use it today.
They don't.
Go figure.

you didn't answer the question about the average lifespans of each type?

also as for still using it today, there's other issues such as efficiency, emissions, and also -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

i like my Aircooled, i like the simplicity of it and don't mind the crap economy as its not a daily driver. i think what simon said is very true,,, poorly maintained anything will not be reliable.
i treat mine as what it is,,, a 26 year old, overstretched engine that will if i abuse it, blow up. i backed off the throttle cable on mine so that i don't quite get full throttle and this means my top speed is only around 65 but is well within the engines comfort zone. theres no significant loss of power but the forces on the engine internals are reduced as i want it to just burble away and keep going. i think with any bus if you hammer it it will die, the technology isn't up to it.
if i had to choose another engine i wouldn't go for volky at all, i think i'd convert it to a pug diesel.

ALL T25 engines are Aircooled..........some are directly Aircooled, others are indirect Aircooled, but theyare all Aircooled.......

Put a piece of cardboard in front of the radiator and pull the plug of the electric cooling fan.......

You will soon see.............

"If Aircooled engines were so unreliable, they wouldn't be used in aircraft" .?? did i really just read that reply further down this thread? dear oh dear oh dear. how bizzare .......who mentioned anything about aircraft? how many road going motor vehicles produced today are cooled using 1920s technology?

sixsprings wrote:

Simon Baxter wrote:If air cooled was so good they would still use it today.
They don't.
Go figure.

you didn't answer the question about the average lifespans of each type?

also as for still using it today, there's other issues such as efficiency, emissions, and also -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Lifespan, stupid question.
Who knows, who cares and who'd remember anyway, welcome to hell.
Soz, went off on a Pop Will Eat Itself tangent then..
And back to the real world.
Lifespan, you can't say, all depends on service and treatment, I think you can fairly much discount that by now and assess something on it's merits as you have no fuppin idea what has gone on in the last 15-27 year.

If you are bothered about the expected lifespan of 15-27 yeard old vans then maybe you shouldn't be driving one. Go buy a new Transit.

Simon Baxter wrote:If you are bothered about the expected lifespan of 15-27 yeard old vans then maybe you shouldn't be driving one. Go buy a new Transit.

you're being silly.
we are discussing the merits of Aircooled and watercooled T3s.
not the lifespan of the van, but of it's engine.
you're not really adding anything constructive

"WEAZLECHIN" wrote:"If Aircooled engines were so unreliable, they wouldn't be used in aircraft" .?? did i really just read that reply further down this thread? dear oh dear oh dear. how bizzare .......who mentioned anything about aircraft? how many road going motor vehicles produced today are cooled using 1920s technology?

harley davidson

was going to say tatra, but they stopped in 1999 but up till then they were using Aircooled v8's. I'd love to hear one of those

I think that, when it's done right, watercooled is definitely a better way to cool an engine that blowing air over it. I think the real issue here (and the reason this thread or something similar has been sparking rows on here for years now) is that VW did not do the water cooling side of things well at all.

As is well known, all VW chose to do was to add a water jacket around an air cooled engine then tune it up a bit. Anyone who's owned a wasserb@stard will know that they are prone to leaking plus a host of other problems. That being said, air has a really lousy heat transfer coeffiecent so there really is almost nothing worse than to try and cool something with it (and before you say it; radiators get round the problem by having a massive surface area exposed to a high airflow). So all that's left is the diesel, but even there VW had a trick up their sleeve. The only turbo diesel they offered was a 1.6 .......... in a 2 ton van.

All the stock engines in the range have some fairly major flaws so it just comes down to personal preference. I really feel sorry for non-mechanical people who want a van and have to try make a decision based lots of peoples different opinions. I went for the 2.1 wasser cause i wanted the extra power and torque and didn't mind getting my hands dirty when it needs some TLC. Aircooled just didn't do it for me and i have a pathalogical hatred of diesels (which i freely acknowledge is totally irrational ; please don't flame me).

Dave

As I said... you will get lots of different views...

Aero engines get rebiult every so many hours... (and it isnt a lot apparently)

Air cooled is simple effective and reliable in low power applications.. but that said it can be made to work very well in high power applications..

watercooling was required from an emissions and noise point..

Yeah the wbx has its faults and was a bit underdeveloped, I suspect the wbx was a low budget stop gap (designed so if could be built on the same lines as the Aircooled), but ended up working well enough for them to keep it... (Remember these are the first of the "disposable" age vehicles) thats partly why we dont see a lot of aftermarket parts and vw are not holding anything (15 years is up)

I always wondered why they didnt fit the I4 petrols like they did with the D/TD... instead of the wbx, would have saved a bit of hassle..

Lets take a look back in history........When VW merged/launched the new AUDI name in 1970, work started on designing a range of new Water Cooled engines, VW only had Air Cooled technology, the water cooled technology was taken from the AUTO UNION group, by 1971 VW sales were in serious trouble, Sales of the Beetle had fallen every year since 1968...and other models in the the range were also not doing well. The new AUDI group set to work and launched the new AUDI 100 and then in 1973 the AUDI 80.......these water cooled engines then found their way into the GOLF and Passat launched in 1974........
Remember......people were parting with their hard earned cash and buying brand new cars from the dealers, Not second hand out the paper....they wanted up to date reliable technology......smooth, quiet, good heating, windows that demist, minimal oil leaks, longer service intervals, more power, better econonmy and front engined, front wheel drive. (for the cars)........ That said, the 2ltr Aircooled motor when correctly serviced / oil changed / maintained is an amazing engine and a credit to the VW engine desingers....They have stood the test and most have gone around the clock twice.......! My father drove beetles in the 60's & 70's he would have nothing else, be even he sold his last beetle in 1985 for a watercooled front wheel drive car........He will never go back to a bug but still admits the lack of water/antifreez was a great advantage during the harsh winters.........but we dont have harsh winters anymore do we???
GaV

HOT 1200 wrote:Sales of the Beetle had fallen every year since 1968..

not so. here are the number of beetles made in a decade
as you can see not until 1974 did the long, slow death of production start

1965 1 090 863
1966 1 080 165
1967 925 787
1968 1 136 134
1969 1 219 314
1970 1 196 099
1971 1 291 612
1972 1 220 686
1973 1 206 018
1974 794 053

HOT 1200 wrote:The new AUDI group set to work and launched the new AUDI 100 and then in 1973 the AUDI 80.......these water cooled engines then found their way into the GOLF and Passat launched in 1974........

not forgetting the Audi 50
[img768]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 50_sst.JPG[/img]

HOT 1200 wrote: Remember......people were parting with their hard earned cash and buying brand new cars from the dealers, Not second hand out the paper....they wanted up to date reliable technology......smooth, quiet, good heating, windows that demist, minimal oil leaks, longer service intervals, more power, better econonmy and front engined, front wheel drive

that's true, but not until vw introduced th golf was there any serious competition.
here's a few small cars from 1972....can you remember what they look like, let alone the last time you saw any of these?

austin 1300
citroen ami 8
daf 55
fiat 127/128
ford escort
hillman imp
honda N600
mini
morris marina
nsu 1000
peugeot 204
reliant rebel
renault 5
toyota corolla
triumph toledo

manxman wrote:

"WEAZLECHIN" wrote:"If Aircooled engines were so unreliable, they wouldn't be used in aircraft" .?? did i really just read that reply further down this thread? dear oh dear oh dear. how bizzare .......who mentioned anything about aircraft? how many road going motor vehicles produced today are cooled using 1920s technology?

harley davidson

correct, my mates got a brand new one(its real "pooh") its been back into the workshop 3 times £10.000 and not even a helmet lock on it, but its an "icon" crap but an icon

sixsprings wrote:

Simon Baxter wrote:If you are bothered about the expected lifespan of 15-27 yeard old vans then maybe you shouldn't be driving one. Go buy a new Transit.

you're being silly.
we are discussing the merits of Aircooled and watercooled T3s.
not the lifespan of the van, but of it's engine.
you're not really adding anything constructive

Eh?
Did you not read the service bit?
Saying vans covers all models, do you really want me to list them all?

"WEAZLECHIN" wrote:"If Aircooled engines were so unreliable, they wouldn't be used in aircraft" .?? did i really just read that reply further down this thread? dear oh dear oh dear. how bizzare .......who mentioned anything about aircraft? how many road going motor vehicles produced today are cooled using 1920s technology?