Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (July 2002, week 5)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:31:11 +0100
Reply-To:     Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Subject:      Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
              i don't want to sell my van!!!!!!!!!
Comments: To: "G. Matthew Bulley" <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

For van, the Transporter (T3?) T25 here, handles extremely well, partic when loaded compared to other vans I have driven which get unstable and tail happy at high loads (simulating a vehcile with flat rear tyres).

My 14 year old T25's steering is quite sharp too, without a lot of freeplay (135,000 miles) The ride balance between empty van (not a camper) and loaded van is good. The absolute cornering forces are moderate to good, but definitely not low

Comparing to Boxster of course is not exactly an enlightened engineering approach - as would comparing the handling of a Spitfire with a Eurofighter - analgous but in absolute terms irrelevant and meaningless.

Anyway, I know what a polyester leisure suit is (I think) but whats a pocket protector?

Clive Smith '88 Syncro Transporter

----- Original Message ----- From: "G. Matthew Bulley" <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:12 PM Subject: Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i don't want to sell my van!!!!!!!!!

> 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.


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.