Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:46:25 EST
Reply-To: CMathis227@AOL.COM
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Chuck Mathis <CMathis227@AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: balljoint leaking grease
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
R&T is Road and Track Magazine. I have filed away somewhere a copy of the original article on the WBX Vanagon that someone posted a couple months ago. With the older Type 2 buses the weight was all in the back. This was because everything heavy except the driver was in the back. When Vanagons came out some of the heavy stuff moved up front -- battery(s), fuel tank and later on the radiator -- and VW added the collision beams that chew up Volvos so well. I suspect the new front suspension and steering gear may be heavier than the old beam style -- I haven't weighed it to find out but there seems to be more stuff than in my '67.
I'm glad I have one of the better balanced Westies -- those numbers are close to the near perfectly balanced Alfa's and Lancia's! Like driving a huge, very boxy, damn slow, sports car!!!
Chuck
'85 Wolfsburg Westy -- 'Roland'
In a message dated Tue, 20 Feb 2001 5:16:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, John Pronk <john_pronk@STRATOS.CO.NZ> writes:
<< What is R&T?
Are the figures the correct way around? Common thinking is that the rear is
heavier than the front, but your information says other wise, obviously this
is the point you are making!
Regards
John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alistair Bell" <albell@UVIC.CA>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 21:20
Subject: Re: balljoint leaking grease
> A couple more data points Stuart,
>
> from R&T tests:
>
> 80 vanagon aircooled , pass van: fr/rear (%) 55/45
> 83.5 vanagon wbx, pass van: fr/rear (%) 56/44
>
> Yes your correct, other vans don't have such an even weight distribution,
> some models are evn more "front heavy"!
>
> Alistair
>
>
>
> on 2/20/01 10:39 AM, Stuart MacMillan at macmillan@HOME.COM wrote:
>
> > I think that the weight balance is not so evenly split on the standard
> > Vanagon, and particularly rear-biased on the Westy. I'd be curious to
> > see the specs for these if you have them.
> >
> >
> > CHRIS STANN wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's disspell some persisting rumors about the Vanagon's weight
> >> distribution. Here's a snippet from a previous post. Look at the
weight
> >> distribution:
> >>
> >> Let us shed some light on the Vanagon's weight bias. The following
specs
> >> are for the '86 Syncro Westfalia.
> >> (http://www.tiu.net/~des/vw/reports/synchro.html)
> >>
> >> DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITIES
> >> Wheelbase ........................ 96.6 in
> >> Track, F/R ....................... 62.4 / 61.8 in
> >> Length ........................... 179.9 in
> >> Width ............................ 72.6 in
> >> Height ........................... 82.1 in
> >> Ground Clearance ................. 8.3 in
> >> Curb Weight ...................... 4000 lb
> >> Weight distribution, F/R ......... 49.3 / 50.7 percent
> >> Fuel capacity .................... 18.4 gal
> >> Oil capacity ..................... 4.2 qt
> >> Water capacity ................... 18.5 qt
> >
> > --
>
>>
| 
