Date:         Tue, 14 May 2002 20:15:07 +1200
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Bus for sale....(which year is best)
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2002051316222140@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

>I know that when the 2.0L came out is was to compensate the weight
>addition of the fridge, stove and bigger pop-top etc.

Actually the 2.0 wasn't introduced because of campers. VW doesn't
MAKE campers. All are conversions done by other companies. It was
just an upgrade to keep the vehicle's performance competitive, which
it certainly wasn't with the 1.6 (which remained an option in the Bay
right til the end).

>All those question because I am looking for one, my girl is crazy about the
>older shape (-79). What I personally want is those 65/69 years with the VW
>"V" shape and big round light in the front (with the square pop top). But
>they tell me that they are quite rare, also the original engine was a
>beetle 1300cc engine and the van was very underpowered, the solution was to
>put a 1600cc (easily fitted) into those.


The Split-winshield vans looked by far the best, for sure. They are
basically the same body as the Bay, with a different cab and rear end
tacked on... in fact the Split's lower rear panels were not changed
(apart fro deletion of the louvers) until the big taillights came in
in 1972.  The cargo-bay floor panels are the same, you'll note, as
are chassis and many other body parts (the Bay was essentially a
heavily revised Split). The Bay went from 1950 to early 1967 (the Bay
commenced production in later 1967), and got new rear end with larger
sprung tailgate for I think 1964. Sliding door optional from 1966.
Engines were 1.2 (25hp & 36hp) into the early 60s, then the 40hp 1.2;
the 1.5 came in a bit later, about 1964? The 1.6 was introduced in
late Splits, maybe 1966 (the 65 was a 1.5). Basic vans performed well
with a 1.6... I put a single-port 1.6 (a 1.3 case with 1.6 top-end)
into my 57 Panelvan, retaining the original split-case 57 trans, and
it accelerated very well and sat on 60-70mph any time (would do over
80, but NOT good for the engine, so I didn't do this often, mainly on
overtaking). The same engine transferred into my 65, with its
somewhat taller gearing, did not perform as well under acceleration,
but wasn't slow when wound up. But then, I'm a leadfoot driver. A
camper however will just overload the engine.

74 & later had better wiper/light switches on the column.


"Yep - 67 whole horsepower. That gets you 60-65 mph on the flat
ground." ?? Come on, or does the US really get such low-power
engines? My 74 1.8 (which had a slip-in 1916 kit, but no other
modifications) with stock pair of single-barrel carbs effortlessly
cruised at 80mph on the flat, passed 90 when overtaking (NOT
downhill) and even up steep long highway hills with a full load would
still sit on 50mph in 3rd (redline on speedo for 3rd).

Bay front suspension can be retrofitted to a Split (go for 72 or
later, these had bigger brake discs) and the swingaxle independent
rear suspension, which is NOT the frightening setup so many seem to
believe, can be modified to Bay specifications. My Bay had stock
suspension, car radials and could really be thrown around at indecent
speeds on twisty country roads. No handling faults there (a Kombi,
NOT a camper!). Much better than the understeering Vanagon. Ant the
trailing-arm suspension all round allows the wheels to move in an arc
away from impacts, giving a BETTER ride than the Vanagon. Afdmittedly
the splits and Bays are cruder inside the acbin than Vanagons, but
can be improved no end by carpeting, seats and upholstery.

I can't understand what the craze is with campers in USA. They are
seriously compromised vehicles, with inherent instability caused by a
tall load which is biased to one side, resulting in rollovers when
swerving violently to the right (LHD vehicles) or left (RHD
vehicles). If I want to camp, I'll take a tent and use the van for
storage and security.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut