Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:39:14 -0500
Reply-To: CHRIS STANN <cstann@HOME.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: CHRIS STANN <cstann@HOME.COM>
Subject: Re: Short Tires, Tall Vans
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Since we are discussing handling, let me throw something in for comparison's
sake.
I owed a '93 Ford Aerostar XLT (extended, dual air, bells, whistles and so
on) and now have an '85 Weekender pop-top. I consider myself an enthusiast
driver (Jetta GLI, Golf GTI, Jetta GL and so on ago) and like to compare
vehicles.
The Vanagon, although equipped with marginally smaller tires, is much more
adept in handling the twisties. As a matter of fact, it is surprisingly
nimble for a vehicle its size. Throw in a few bumps and my Aerostar would
lose composure where the Westfalia is just loving it. The Westy feels much
more balanced and more composed. The 4-speed is a big plus when pushing
through the curves as it allows me to make balance adjustments with the
throttle. Also, off-road the Aerostar would readily get stuck, and the
Westy, with its greater ground clearance and independent suspension, can
make it through some surprising terrain. Also, the Westy has better brakes
even though the Aerostar had rear ABS. The Aerostar would blow the doors
off the Vanagon in any drag race and it got 24 MPG cruising at 80 MPH with a
4.0 L V-6.
Now, I also used to have an Isuzu Trooper. I see how the taller center of
gravity combined with the tall tires can make a big difference in an
emergency maneuver. Also, the Trooper was not any faster or quicker than my
Westy although the Isuzu came with a 2.8 L V-6.
----- Original Message -----
From: Donna Stewart <DStewart@CHRM.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Short Tires, Tall Vans
If you linked to the NHS whatever data they had none on the Vanagon (though
a 1971 Beetle did surprisingly well - got 4 stars but there were no
occupants!) One thing the article pointed out is you have to look at other
factors. How do you drive - recklessly? Do you wear your seatbelt?
Vanagons generally aren't hot rods - I can cruise at 70+, but soccer moms in
SUVs are still passing me like I'm going backwards. Do you think if you
have a tire blowout in any vehicle going that fast that it's going to have a
positive outcome? I don't think the Vanagon's center of gravity is all that
bad compared to SUVs; remember we've got better weight distribution. Also
if I'm not mistaken the Vanagon is considered a "passenger" vehicle, not a
truck, so it had to conform to a higher safety standard at the time. I will
say that my 1960 double cab gave me a scare one day - I turned a corner a
little too sharp and let me tell you there's a difference between it and a
Vanagon!
>>> Ed Mellinger <meed@MBARI.ORG> 10/25/00 11:56AM >>>
A general question for you folks running those low and/or wide tires on
your vans... how much more cornering ability can a Vanagon handle? I've
always felt like the van was getting ready to roll over *before* my
tires got to the limit of adhesion, and that's on stock tires (185 width
and probably 78 aspect ratio, IIRC). In the sports cars I've owned,
tire adhesion has dominated the cornering performance. In my Van, I
suspect it is the center of gravity... and I don't want to find out
myself!
Just to motivate the discussion (though I hate to mention the dreaded
S*V word here), here's a different group of consumers who is dealing
with the immutability of the laws of physics:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/480570.asp?cp1=1
I generally feel just that teeny bit smug, in my Van, when the press
lampoons the S*V... but not when reading this article. Wouldn't mind
seeing the rollover-stat list that Dateline claims they have... anyone
else have any experience with Vanagon rollovers, or rollover statistics?
regards,
Ed Mellinger
'84 plain jane
| 
