Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:52:59 -0500
Reply-To: Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Van related sites I found interesting - a little off topic
In-Reply-To: <421DED70.3080901@mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
It isn't everyday that one can attack a sacred cow like VW enthusiasts
and tell them their car(s) suck. :)
The Vanagon was wind tunnel tested to address some of the concerns with
earlier VW vans. Specifically, handling in cross winds. The Vanagon is
better...it still has quite a bit of problem in strong cross winds.
Handling of a vehicles is, to some extent, subjective. A long wheel
base compared to body length helps make a vehicle steady on the road
and less prone to side winds, but usually does not allow the vehicle to
turn as quickly. Which is important to you? Similarly a wide wheel base
helps with body lean, but again, affects manueverability.
Busses and Vanagons all have short narrow wheel bases compared to body
size. That makes them great for parking. But put a cross wind on them
at highway speed and you are all over the place. Keyword: Highway
speed. At low speeds crosswinds do not have as much impact.
If you aren't in California, Florida or Hawaii, heat in the winter time
is of fair importance. Engine in the rear of the aircooled buses, meant
it was a LONG way to the front for heat....if it ever made it there.
And forget about having sufficient heat for the windshield. Yes, if
your heat exchangers were brand new, you had good heat (especially in
the Bugs)...until they rusted through (which due to salty roads wasn't
all that long in the rustbelt of North America).
Power. or lack thereof. If you've never had it, you don't know what you
are missing. For some folks having excessive power in the vehicles
isn't a big deal. The Datsun 210's of the world are perfect for you.
For some of the rest of us, the ability to get on a highway and get up
to traffic speed in something less than a month, is important. The very
design of the busses and Vanagons that I like (huge interior space)
encourages people to, well put too much stuff in them for the capacity
of the engine. Asking 60 hp to accelerate a vehicle loaded with 1200
pounds of humans is asking a lot. With the Subaru engine in my Westy
Syncro, I have a vehicle that is great, with plenty of power. It is
COMPLETELY different than a stock engine. Power made all the
difference.
As I stated. The cartalk guys were spot on towards the weaknesses of
the VW transporters. They don't mention the good things. The don't
ignore the bad things. I own 3 vanagons. I looked out in the market and
decided there was nothing that had the features I wanted (which
Vanagons have) and the things the Vanagons lacked (power) could be
addressed with sufficient outlay of cash. Vanagons have lots of weak
points. I don't ignore them just because I love them. The cartalk guys
are doing a radio program in the present day....not 1960. The world of
automobiles has changed. In 1960 a vehicle getting 25-30 mpg wasn't
expected to have lots of power and performance (though a few did), but
what was judged power and performance THEN, is not the same as NOW. A
Porsche 356 was, what 90hp? A Ferrari, 200hp? Today, I'm not sure what
vehicles are out there with only 90hp (in the US market). And the
number of vehicles with 200hp (or more) is simply too many to count.
| 
