Club 80-90 Forums

hi guys
i'm a noob to the forum (doesn't seem to be an "introduce yourself" section )-so hi all

hope this is in the right place.

just wanting to know peoples views on the old air cooled or water cooled debate

I know a few pro's and cons of both,but is the Aircooled lump ,o.k on long journeys ? every motorcycle iv'e ever had has been air/oil cooled & never had a problem with any-are the ol vw air cooled lumps the same
cheers guys

Put several thousand miles on a new bay in the 70s in a month - no problems whatsoever.
Now diesel with no problems.
All depends upon your maintenance same as any machine.

i have both and i would pick Aircooled every time less hassle more tunable easier to fix

Hi and welcome to here

I have never owned an Aircooled but from 12 years of using a water cooled and reading this forum, I know =

1600 Aircooled = very under powered (actually I did own one of these, for a week, many years ago, it was slow and blew up in spectacular fashion I sold it "as is")

2Ltr Aircooled = a lot of folks like them, reasonable power, can be tuned, a bit thirsty but better if LPG'd

Early 1.9 water cooled (DF) = OK but a bit under powered and prone to expensive problems related to the water jacket to head seals, often resulting in a replacement motor being needed ( ~£1000 )

Later 1.9 water cooled (DG) = (what I have in 2 x vans) = OK all round but also prone to expensive problems related to the water jacket to head seals, often resulting in a replacement motor being needed ( ~£1000 )

2.1 Water cooled, plenty of power, sometimes equipped with fuel injection, which is usually reliable but if it does give problems, there is a lot more to "know about" to fix it. Also prone to throwing con rods if poorly maintained or over revved, plus the usual expensive problems related to the water jacket to head seals, often resulting in a replacement motor being needed ( ~£1000+ ).

Many owners (including me) have an LPG conversion fitted with cuts fuel bills by about 1/3rd (or ~33% for you modern kids )

Hope that helps.

thanks for the replies guys

certainly has given me some more to think about

We own a 1600 air cooled camper, or as some would say we put up with owning!

It is true that it has a 65 or so mph top speed, slow acceleration... But...

Keep one tuned up, in good clean condition and they are bomb proof. Vw designed it as a lower cost option, with low compression so it's less stressed, though less powerful, even less bhp than a late bay 1600.

Plus they sound great

Just sayin' :p

Its all about the sound on an air cooled.

Tobyt25 wrote:Its all about the sound on an air cooled.

I second that!

mines sounds better than any soundtrack especially with its performance exhaust

faggie wrote:mines sounds better than any soundtrack especially with its performance exhaust

How much was your exhaust and what does it look like??

now the bad news it was nearly the price you have been quoted for a new engine

Air or water - thought the question was going to be "What should I fill my tyres with" or which is best for hiccups.

Don't think 'dabate' is right word as they're different beasts entirely, besides this has been asked before.

I like them both - they each have their strengths and weaknesses but essentially an Aircooled is a Beetle engine maxed out, simpler and less to go wrong in many ways but more expensive on parts I found. Some bits are obsolete, but still good old workhorses.

Personally i say buy a van with good bodywork, then look at the interior and it doesn't matter if its air or water cooled. If your undecided, you will love either.

the Aircooled vans never seem to rust on the front panel anywhere near as bad as the watercooled vans

I'm prepared to be shot down over this, I'm thinking that its partly down to the mdf panels used to direct the air at the rad
mark

faggie wrote:the Aircooled vans never seem to rust on the front panel anywhere near as bad as the watercooled vans