Date:         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:12:00 -0400
Reply-To:     "G. Matthew Bulley" <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "G. Matthew Bulley" <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Organization: Bulley-Hewlett
Subject:      Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
              i don't want to sell my van!!!!!!!!!
In-Reply-To:  <f05100302b96d34ddd0a0@[203.167.170.16]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Andrew writes:
"The T2 was strong, roomy, comfortable, plenty fast enough... and it
handled extremely well..."

ROTFLMAO

I can agree that it had some strength, in that the gearing VW provided
allowed you to haul amazing amounts of stuff with only 68 hp. My 1982
Westfalia is at least as strong, but in the range of "strong vehicles"
like the Dodge Ram 10v pickup, or the Ford Diesel pickup, I'd bet the t2
doesn't show. Try towing anything more than a tiny trailer with your t2.
Bah!

Roomy? The Vanagon is quite a bit larger than the t2 inside. No debate
there.

Comfortable? Let's see, the t2 featured un-adjustable, stinky
horsehair/vinyl seats, rubber covered floors, ear-splitting noise,
sweltering unassisted ventilation system and ergonomics apparently
developed for use in concentration camps... Which would you rather spend
4 weeks touring the country in, a Vanagon, or old t2? I rest my case.

Fast? Neither is. Let's not kid ourselves.

Handled extremely well??? You are completely joking, aren't you. A
Porsche Boxster handles "extremely well". Compared to a t2 bus, a Geo
Metro handles "extremely well". The t2 is the farthest opposite extreme.
In fact I wonder if ANY vehicles handle worse than a VW bus; not many.
Even in the best shape the t2 is vague, unresponsive, drifty,
sloth-like, and loathsome to drive.

Some like t2's, but by-in-large it is a style choice, not a choice of
reliability, handling or performance. Like wearing a polyester leisure
suit, a pocket protector, or carrying an ornate walking stick. Some like
the look. They like whatever comment it makes about them when they
arrive in a t2.

Frankly, the look of the loaf to me said "hippy dope-smoking burn out";
I was humiliated and embarrassed by ours, I was weary of aging
baby-boomers flashing a "peace sign" at me, and I danced a little jig
when the new owner drove it away. Good riddance.

Got to go change into my polyester leisure suit w/pocket protector,

G. Matthew Bulley
Bulley-Hewlett
Marketing & Communications
Business: www.bulley-hewlett.com
Phone: +1.919.658.1278


-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
Of Andrew Grebneff
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:13 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i don't want to sell my
van!!!!!!!!!

Which Type 2 Transporter bus is better, the Bay or Vanagon? The T2
was not in any way inferior to the T3. It was more basic, sure, but
that was typical of most vehicles of the 70s. It certainly had less
to go wrong than the T3.

The T2 was strong, roomy, comfortable, plenty fast enough (in 1.8 or
2.0 form... forget the 1.6!) in nonAmerican versions, and it handled
extremely well also. Only real faults might have been vaggue steering
at straight-ahead and poor heating.

Gee, the T1 wasn't bad either, though the hinged cargo-bay doors
(sliders were not a common option in the Splits) tended to warp and
split and the swingaxle independent rear was NOT good for towing
heavy vehicles.