TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:06 pm

I just wanted to know one thing. Some of you Vanagon owners probably have owned a Baywindow 1968-71, 1972-79. What is your preference aside from the fact that some Vanagons were water cooled? I'm thinking of buying
a air-cooled Vanagon but please, tell me what you think.

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:17 pm

If I were buying aircooled, it probably wouldn't be a vanagon. IMO most of the vanagon advantages WERE watercooling and the later model power stuff and more cushy interiors.

I think the vanagon is significantly heavier also. Not a good thing for an aircooled engine.

That being said, I have seen 1600cc engine pushing around aircooled vanagons.

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:31 pm

I put over 250,000 miles and 22 years on a '71 bus. I've had an '87 Vanagon for the last 13 years. I couldn't go back to the '71. No power, no heat, fewer comforts.... Not exactly answering your question as I went from AC to WC. YMMV. :D

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:41 pm

I've have/had them all...a good running aircooled vanagon will get you around, but you can't be in a hurry.

my 71 bus felt like I could push it a little more, and parts where a heck of alot easier to find and cheaper.

I wouldn't trade my wc vanagon for nuthin'

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:59 pm

No matter how nice the ride was in my 72 baywindow I could never quite get out of my mind how little was between me and oncoming traffic. Vanagon has some substance to the front and I will happily drive my family thousands of miles in it.
Once you get where you're going it doesn't matter how many horsies are back there, and air-cooled have had a variety of engine swaps put in too if you ever want to get like that.

Have fun however you go!

841'9 auto

Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:13 pm

GeorgeO. wrote: I just wanted to know one thing ... What is your preference aside from the fact that some Vanagons were water cooled?

I've owned all the splittie/bay ac'ers in the past. To echo what some others have said ....

The vanagon air-coolers had a short production life for a reason ... the engines supplied were simply way too under-powered to push the vanagon weight. It wasn't the engine's fault ... it just wasn't matched well.

I've owned '78 & '79 bays with virtually the same engine as the vanagon ac and they were great. In fact they were my favorites years for the bays in terms of performance.

Having said all that I think driving a vanagon air-cooler will be fine as long as you understand you have about 70 horses trying to push some serious weight effectively putting you back to @ the early 60's in terms of power/weight ratios. If that's acceptable to you and you can take it easy on the engine then it would work out.

Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:52 pm

I like each of them, each has its strong points, and each is a delight to drive.

Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:13 pm

You will get a better deal with an aircooled vanagon when compared to a bay since bays are getting more pricey. The weight difference is not that much. I think the vanagon engine has better aircooling than the bay setup since the cooling fan does not split the air between the engine and heat exchanger like the bay engine. The heat exchanger setup is a bit better on the vanagon too. It is about 74 degrees inside when it is 13 outside. The max cruising speed is 74 on a vanagon verses 75 for a bay. So I guess you might get there faster in a bay. Good luck in your decision.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:20 am

So it is a power to weight ratio that is at issue here. Is there a difference between the a 1.9 and 2.0 AC power plant for these buses (1980-83) vs. the same engines for 78-79 bays?

Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:39 am

I haven't owned an older bus, but used to have an aircooled Vanagon (early '83 model) and now have a 2.1 watercooled ('87) so at least I can compare those two directly.

I drove the aircooled '83 for 10 years and 120k miles, with an engine rebuild needed at 95k when it melted a piston. It served me well, but as noted it was very slow and the heat/defrost capability were marginal at best. No A/C in that one.

My current Vanagon, while not fast by any means, is 'acceptable' with its freshly-rebuilt 2.1 wasserboxer, and has good A/C and excellent heat/defrost. Other than that it feels just like my original '83.

I was young and single when I had the aircooled Vanagon so its lack of modern amenities (meaning heat/defrost and air conditioning) was tolerable; but now that I'm hauling my family around the more modern version is needed. Both are fine vehicles; it just depends on what you need.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:26 am

for me it would be about part availibilty between the two and with that said i would go with a bay over air cooled vanagon on that only,,,creature comfort the vanagon but air cooled motor parts for the vanagon not as plentiful as the h2o vans....never owned a air cooled vanagon but had 4 bays

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:35 am

the aircooled vanagon doesn't need any more specific parts than a aircooled Bay.. there are 4(maybe more) variations of fuel injection & wiring harness to ECU combos in the 75-79 Bay (fed, Cali, AT and I forget)
there are only 2 variations in the 80-83 aircooled vanagons (federal & Cali)

but not all ECUs and AFMs swap neatly anyways.. IMO there are more necessary parts available for the AC van than the AC & injected Bay.

really it has to to with your own Budget, whats available when you are looking and what your personal preference in style. many are blissfully happy to be driving around in a Bay camper although I don't find the styling and 'culture' to outweigh the limitations..
but then again I put a jetta I4 into my formerly AC 1980 vanagon.. after 1 trip thru NY & PA on the interstate at 40mph uphill that wasn't acceptable (to me)

many aircooled vans are driven by someone for hundreds of thousands of miles. so they must be acceptable to some.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:51 am

:bay_blue: Had an 81 ac loved it 5 years later my son burned it up in AZ. heat . Next I got a 82 diesel, OMG was the 81 faster, whole new perspective on life! Then to a 84 wow a real van, then to a 87 2.3 GW wow I can keep up with traffic! Moral of this story, buy a AC if you want to sit at a campground. Or get a water cooled if you need to drive it! :D

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:16 am

Quote: So it is a power to weight ratio that is at issue here.

From what I could find on real world weights of loaded vehicles, the vanagon westy folks seemed to weigh about the same as a bay westy. The vanagon engine has some slight differences than a bay. The power is the same, but the cooling seems to be a little ore robust than a bay since the cooling fan is dedicated to just cooling the engine it is not separated between cooling the engine and the heater boxes. I have had no problems with defrosting windows in the winter but have only driven in above 0f temperatures. That said you need to be a dedicated aircooled guy who is vigilant on sealing the engine compartment and making sure the heating system is correctly hooked up. If any of the air tubing is coming apart (there are quite a few connections) your heat will suffer, but since it does not leak coolant you will have no idea why your heat sucks and where it is leaking, (when I pulled my transmission I found a place where the heating dust was disconnected now I can get the interior to 74 in 13 degree weather). If the engine compartment is missing seals oil the oil cooler -tin seal is missing or engine tin, it will give you overheating problems. I think the vanagon westy is a lot more comfortable. Other than the fuel injection system parts are easy enough to find or/ substitutes have been found. My experience has been about the same with either a bay or vanagon aircooled. What I do not get is the people with 1600cc engine bays claiming to go 80 all day. They must go through a few engines in the time I go through one. The 1600cc bays are supposed to have only a top cruising speed of 65-68 mph. I still belive you will get more westy for the money in an aircooled westy vanagon.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:34 am

GeorgeO. wrote: So it is a power to weight ratio that is at issue here. Is there a difference between the a 1.9 and 2.0 AC power plant for these buses (1980-83) vs. the same engines for 78-79 bays?

Yes there is a weight ratio issue. Someone mentioned it wasn't much (between the bay and brick) but when one is using a (good but) underpowered engine that weight difference is amplified, especially when loaded up with you and stuff, and especially the faster you try to go and the more challenging the terrain and altitude. There are also suspension differences and the vanagon presents a larger nose front (although technically the vanagons are more aerodynamic than the bays).

I recall the vanagon air-coolers coming out and many people luv'd them except some engines were burning out. People were trying to make them do more than they could. There was a demand both in NA and even in Euro to improve upon that, hence, the short life of the air-cooler in the vanagon.

But in the US there was another reason ... auto air-pollution and restrictions were coming into vogue in earnest and apparently VW thought they really couldn't go to a larger air-cooler and still meet the demands for more power/torque plus pass tight US smog standards so they came out with the 1.9L water-boxer, eventually catalytic converters and some diesels began to emerge (another story) eventually moving into the 2.1L wbxers in NA - faster than they did in the rest of the world.

By the time the 2.1L wbxers hit the vanagon, VW was already focused on the the new eurovan design hence they, in my opinion fatally (no offense to the eurovans), dropped most attention on the bricks and never tried to seriously improve on the vanagon 2.1L wbxer (a good but still only adequate engine in a brick for modern demands). But in South Africa they were fiddling with newer engine designs which eventually led to the TIICO and a few other jobs.

Those 2.0L engines were very similar but not identical to the late bay 2.0L 'porsche' jobs. But generally speaking the differences were minor. You can google or go over to the Samba bay forum and get more info on that. Most vanagon air-coolers I know still hang on that forum.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:54 am

I drove a '78 Bay halfway across Canada and my first Vanagon experiences were driving in my buddy's '80 air cooled.
The air-cooled Vanagon drives just fine, at sea level anyway. Lack of power compared to water cooled is not a deal-breaker in my book. This particular westy has a gas heater which works very well. Defrost is another issue entirely! This van is about to entertain its third generation of camper as it's been in the family since new. I believe it's on its second motor, possibly third. Not a biggie as the motor can be swapped out in an afternoon.
For me the biggest difference between Vanagon and Bay was driving comfort. The Vanagon is much nicer to drive. The position is more comfortable, it handles better, brakes better, easier to shift and roomier.
I would take an air cooled Vanagon over a Bay Window any day of the week.
I will admit to preferring the cozy "cocoon" feeling of a Bay westy when camping, but the older Vanagon with fake wood panelling comes close! 8)

Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:02 pm

note the poor susp. travel on the Vanagon, but improved in most other ways

Vanagon vs. Bay Window Bus

- 5” wider interior than Bus
- floor 4” lower (better design for strength)
so, 18% more interior volume – 176 ft3
- also slightly wider & longer
- easier cargo loading – sliding side door 15% larger & R hatch is 75% larger
- R. cargo area is nearly 8” lower than in Bus

same air-cooled engine as late Bus, but has better sound isolation

Front Suspension is now unequal length A-arms with progressive coil springs, and an anti-roll bar (instead of the Bus’s trailing arms and torsion bars)
Rear Suspension now uses progressive coil springs on the semi-trailing arms
- wayward tendencies in windy conditions greatly reduced
- BUT suspension droop is reduced, so off-road ability is worse – esp. since a R. wheel can easily lose traction
- 50/50 weight distribution and re-designed suspension prevents any of the swaying under windy conditions that plagued the Bus

smaller turning circle 35.1 ft - 6.5 ft. less than the Bus
(34.5 ft.)

skidpad 0.79 lateral g (Bus was 0.63 g)

much safer for front seat occupants
better aerodynamics – windshield canted backwards
windows are larger, as is the rear glass (92% increase)

Brakes – overall very good, with excellent control in panic stops from 60 mph; 60 to 0 stopping distance = 165 ft.
- easy to modulate & no hint of front or rear lockup; fade not excessive (pedal pressure went from
R&T could not get the Vanagon up to 80 mph on their test track, so no 80 to 0 brake tests

“comfort and handling unequalled in any other make or model” at the time

windshield is 21 percent larger than that of the previous Bus and there is a 22-percent increase in side window glass area

rear compartment's floor has been lowered 7.9 in

for 1983.5 water cooled Vanagon:
Curb weight 3,400 lb.
0 to 60 mph = 18.3 sec
0 - 1320 ft (1/4 mi) ... 20.9
Speed at end of 1/4 mi, mph ... 63.5

Cd = 0.44

- excerpts from VW & Porsche Magazine, May/June 1980
- Road & Track ,July 1980
- 1980 MT Truck of the Year

Car and Driver tested a Camper Syncro, which tipped the scales at 4,000 lbs.

1.9L WBX motor weighed 95 kg (bare), but when wt. of radiator, coolant, and connecting pipes are added, it outweighs the air cooled motor, adding 40 kg total to the Kombi

1.9L WBX engine is shorter than the air cooled engine because water cooling allows the cylinders to be placed closer together

water pump parasitic load is only 0.7 hp, where the air cooled fan required 3.4 hp; noise reduced by 50% (3-4 dB-A); hp increased by 22%; fuel economy increased by 19% (from 16 mpg to 19 mpg)

DigiJet is based on the Bosch L-Jetronic FI system
Digifant…

Syncro :
7.4” gnd. clearance
20 approach angle
54% incline can be climbed

7.5” gnd. Clearance vs. 6.5” for 2wd Vanagon

1956 Microbus with 36 horse engine:
a 0-60 in 75 seconds I know that one was for sure in R&T and it was on a 1954 or 55.

Air cooled Vanagon:

Car and Driver: 17.9 seconds
Road and Track: 21.2 seconds
Motor Trend: 23 seconds

Diesel:

Hot VWs: 41.1 seconds Shocked

1.9 Wasserboxer:

Road and Track: 18.3 seconds
Motor Trend: 17.9 seconds

2.1 Wasserboxer

Car and Driver (Bluestar automatic): 16.9 seconds

Car and Driver (Syncro westy weekender): 18.3 seconds

Car and Driver: (Tristar Syncro): 17.9 seconds

Honestly, I've never driven a manual trans, 2wd wasserboxer
(non-camper) Vanagon that I have a big problem with the performance with. I drive an Audi TT 225 roadster and a BMW 328i for my everyday cars so I have fairly high expectations overall for performance.

Car and Driver Feb 1980 tested an aircooled Vanagon in 1980.
VW Vanagon L, rear engine, rear wheel drive, 7-passenger 4-door van.
Price as tested $10,020
aircooled 67hp engine
Performance: Seconds
Zero to 30..........................4.6
40.........................7.6
50.........................12.2
60.........................17.9
70.........................29.4
Standing 1/4 mile ...............20.7 sec @63mph Top speed...........................75mph
Braking, 70-0mph................214ft

Subaru WRX engine, 250 hp
estimated 0-60 is 7 sec,
latest 1/4 mile run was 14.803 @ 91.5

Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:28 pm

All these engines, both air-cooler and wbxer, had good low end torque which has been a hallmark of the vw rear engine jobs. So puttering around town and keeping up was never a major issue. I think a 1.9L or 2.1L (and maybe even a 2.0L air-cooler) could keep up fairly close with my subie 2.5L in the low end off the mark.

What's more telling is the torque range in the upper end on the highway. The vw engines are dawgs whereas the subie, especially dropped into third, can pass with ease at speed (or better yet ... get you out of that pod of semi's wrapping around you on the interstate).

A SVX or a H6 ... wave goodbye to the cops ... :shock: 8)

Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:56 pm

The Vanagon is going to handle better in the wind which can be a major plus in many areas. I like my Bay over my Vanagons and usually will use the bay for long road trips. It feels quicker and more nimble, though it will not pull a grade as fast as a WBXer will.