Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:44:31 -0600
Reply-To: Andrew Fox <afox@CNR.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Andrew Fox <afox@CNR.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vanagon vs Alternative Vehicles
In-Reply-To: <004901c44280$aa275cd0$d9032a45@ttowerdef17>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Tim and Doug,
You are both wrong about the gas mileage of full size american vans. It
is a common misconception that a 4000 pound vanagon with a 2.1L engine
will get better gas mileage than a NEW 6000 pound chevy with a 4+ liter
v-6 or v-8. The fact of the matter is that modern engine technology now
provides twice the horsepower and displacement at the same fuel efficeny
compared to the poorly designed waterboxer engine. If you dont believe me
do some investigations yourself at www.fueleconomy.gov, granted the
numbers here aren't exactly what you'll get on the highway but they
provide a very good indicator for comparison. A 2.1 L vanagon is listed
at 19 MPG highway and 18 city, many full size 2004 american vans are
listed at 20 MPG highway and 16-18 city with the smallest engines
available being 4.3 liter V-6's, and vehicle weights over 6000 pounds.
You are both right about the handling aspects of these vans, they suck
compared to the vanagon, and yes the vanagon is better in the snow, in
short they are less fun to drive IMHO. I owned an 86 Vanagon Westy from
2000 - 2003 and deemed it impractical for travelling outside of tow range.
I now own a 98 Ford E-150 van which i am customizing with the westfalia
interior from an 87 vanagon. I would have rather bought a gtrv or
sportsmobile but the cost is too high like you pointed out. A nicely
equipped new GTRV runs about 36K BTW which is'nt bad when you compare it
to other big new vehicles (SUV's, Eurovan's, etc).
Andrew
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Doug in Calif wrote:
> Tim,
> Very interesting post!
> You have to give the makers credit, there is a need in the American RV market for SMALLER rigs.
> The motor homes are so wasteful of space its a joke. This is good to see.
>
> Before I bought my first vanagon I went and looked at all the Detroit offerings for a cargo van and I was going to do my own westy conversion to it.
> I too was thinking about the better towing capacity, power, newness, parts at kragen, etc.
> The full size ford had less room floor to ceiling in it by several inches than the vanagon.
> The engine cowling was pushing my feet over awkwardly to the left. Getting up from the drivers seat to go into the rear was not anywhere as easy as the vanagon.
>
> These rigs do not have a fully independent suspension systems so they handle like a turd on twisty roads.
> if they are rear wheel drive they will spin on even the slightest ice or slick surface as they have no weight on the rear wheels.
> A standard 2wd vanagon will run circles around them in the snow.
> The feeling of the steering with all that engine weight on it has to have so much assist you loose all the road feel which is marvelous in the vanagon.
> I know the vanagon blows around a bit but its steering feel with the engine in the back is awesome.
>
> I recently humbled badly a Lexus SUV on a twisty road going out to the coast, every time we got into the turns I would put distance between us in my 85 sunroof 1.9.
> Then he would go like hell to catch me on the straights to try to pass but we were back in the turns again and he would try like crazy to stay up but my little 85 was mashing him in the turns.
> It was a hoot man!
>
> Again I really appreciate the post and It is really good to see the RV community especially American mfgs to think in more compact terms. Its no surprise the took note to the "westy" and have developed a design that is already well thought out. (if they could only put a rear engine and IRS) just kidding.
>
> If you offered me a 70,000 rig brand new for my 87 syncro westy, I would pass if I had to keep it.
>
> Doug
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Schneider
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Vanagon vs Alternative Vehicles
>
>
> ** At 09:37 AM 5/25/2004, you wrote: **
>
> >Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:18:53 -0600
> >From: Andrew Fox <afox@CNR.COLOSTATE.EDU>
> >Subject: Re: Vanagon vs Alternative Vehicles
> >
> >have you checked out the american van poptop conversions with interior
> >layouts identical to the vanagon westy?
> >
> >www.gtrv.com
> >www.parnado.com
> >www.sportsmobile.com
> >
> >The major disadvantage of these is that they are bigger than the vanagon,
> >which may be an advantage to some. They typically get about the same gas
> >mileage (sometimes better) as a 2.1 L Vanagon westy with the smallest
> >engines available being half the size of a 2.1L waterboxer. Of course
> >there are immense advantages to driving a vehicle that is still in
> >production, is easy to get parts/service for, and has a reputation for
> >durability and reliablity etc...
>
> http://www.sportsmobile.com/4_4x4sports.html
>
>
> >> Around $55,000-$75,000 for the van, Sportsmobile
> >> and Sportsmobile 4x4 conversion.
>
> and I thought my syncro was expensive!
>
> gas milage? with a ford triton v10 or 6.0l diesel
> fuggedaboutit! :-) the diesel version would be
> cool though, lots of towing capacity, 16.5" of
> ground clearance as well!
>
> John Sherman (famous/infamous? boulderer showed
> yp at JTree a few years back with one of these 4x4
> conversion vans.. had a big screen plasma display
> mounted on the inside with surround sound! :-)
>
> would be nice to pick up parts from the FLAPS down
> the street (3 of them) detroit muscle for an engine
> would be nice, as well as much more reliable/forgiving
> of you (w/r/t repairs and such)
>
> there is something to be said for the VW thing.. it is
> a cult which one does not easily escape from once in
> its clutches.. took 15 years for it to recapture me..
> now the whole family is smitten again ;-)
>
> -tim
>
> 90 syncro westy
> mesa, az
>
| 
