>To this point, we are all here because of a common bond; this includes, >look/style and functional superiority. In describing other Vanagon-esque >vehicles, ghastly is an understatement. The Euros are ghastly. The first version of the new Transhit, in the 90s (the 60s-80s Transit was an ugly deathtrap too), was ugly, with a modern wedge nose tacked onto a crudely-styled body, with cab doors with windows mismatched to the vehicle's appearance. The facelift, probably done to make it look less like its Mercedes clone (which was the original?), is HIDEOUS. The Mercedes continues with the same styling as the 90s Transit, just a slightly modified nose job. The FWD Hiace line isn't bad-looking at all... Toyota managed, despite the sheel ugliness of most of the other current Toyotas, to do what noone else has... design a good-looking snouted van. BUT it's as space-inefficient as the other snouted vans. But I wouldn't call a snouted van "Vanagonesque", as theirs is a different philisophy. >We are not owners of vans because >they are perfect - I suspect aesthetic value weighs in most. Well, I certainly wouldn't buy a T2 or T3 Type 2 for its looks (the T1 is another story entirely); I like them for their roominess, user-friendliness and above all their handling prowess. That said, a T2 or T3 van can be MADE to look VERY good with a set of wheels, the right grill/light setup (if applicable) and paintwork. As a vehicle a Type 2 or Hiace comes as close to perfect as a vehicle can, though the VW is let down by shoddy plastics, switchgear, unergonomic controls (including dangerous column switches in RHD markets, as is typical of all Euro makes) and cruddy reliability. The Hiace just needs IRS to be perfect, but with semielliptic or torsionbar rear end (depending on trim level) it does extremely well anyway. >I haven't seen Ford Transit owners honk and wave at eachother as they pass >by. If *I* was driving one of these lame ducks I'd duck out of sight behind the huge ugly tacked-in plastic dash! Well, it's not QUITE that bad. But these things only have one redeeming feature (and it's a double-edged sword)... width. They seat 3 abreast in the rear, with a narrow staggered aisle for access. Minus the aisle, they could seat 4 abreast... but then, so can a VW van, as they are quite wide too (just not TOO wide, as the Frod/Merc is). In my experience, here in NZ and in Australia back in 1976, VW van drivers do wave to one another. But in NZ a "Vanagon" wouldn't be recognized by most other Type 2 drivers, as there are only about 50 in the country... most would no doubt mistake them for a 1st-generation Mitsubishi Delica. Gimme a VW bus or a Hiace... I'd be happy with either. Hey! I have BOTH! -- Andrew Grebneff 165 Evans St, Dunedin, New Zealand 64 (3) 473-8863 <andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz> Fossil preparator Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut |
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.