Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 21:26:27 -0700
Reply-To: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Organization: Genentech, Inc.
Subject: Re: off road in a Vanagon Was Tires
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To back up Chris...
According to the vehicle specs on Vanagon.com, Vanagon curb weights range from
around 3100 lbs for a 1980 passenger van to around 4100 lbs for a later model
Syncro Camper GL.
I think this makes the Vanagon generally heavier than the Type II bus. I don't
think stock buses ever exceeded 3000 lbs, but I could be mistaken about that.
Compared to the Type II bus, the Vanagon is a somewhat larger vehicle that meets
more stringent crash safety standards with a reinforced passenger "cage" and
built-in crumple zones. The original air-cooled Type 4 engine was a great match
for the old bus, but in the Vanagon with it's extra weight, this engine was (and
is) decidedly underwhelming (one of the reasons it passed into automotive
history).
I only speak from experience, owning an '82 Adventurewagen which, prior to it's
current slightly modified engine, was hard pressed to maintain reasonable highway
speeds due to it's 3600 lb bulk and meager 67 hp. My '87 camper, approximately the
same weight if not heavier, does far better.
I tend to agree with some on this thread that it's a combination of suspension
design, gearing, lighter weight and not too much power that conspire to make the
Type II bus a better off-road vehicle than the Vanagon. But the Vanagon has it
hands down for all around comfort and driveability. And the couple of bags of sand
in the back would probably help for off-road, too.
Most of the above is my opinion.
Dan
Jim A wrote:
> I beg to differ... My experience tells me that the Vanagon is lighter, not
> heavier. That would be in keeping with engineering advances made over the
> years. I suspect that if one put a couple of sacks of sand in the back they
> just might get through some of the rough stuff.
>
> Jim Arnott
> WetWesties
> Union, OR
>
> CHRIS STANN wrote:
> >
> > The old Breadloafs are lighter than our Vana-gones. So they tread more
> > lightly. They have more rear-biased weight distribution plus lower gearing.
> > Every little bit helps.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jim A <jrasite@eoni.com>
> > To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 9:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: off road in a Vanagon Was Tires
> >
> > > I'd be curious to know the weight of a V'gon vs. a loaf. My ASI
> > conversion
> > > ('77) crosses the scales at 4750 two up, loaded for camping. Anybody KNOW
> > how
> > > much their V'gon weighs?
> > >
> Unca Joel writ:
> > my 88 bus non-camper weighs in at 3640 lbs empty (but full fuel). the
> > 87 full camper weighs in at 3960 empty (but full fuel). :)
> >
> > joel
| 
