Date:         Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:58:36 +1300
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: NYTimes.com Article
In-Reply-To:  <20041129162738.77F7784BD@web39t.prvt.nytimes.com>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>Not everyone was enraptured with the ungainly "bread loaf,"

Ungainly? try telling me arestored Samba uis ungainly!!

>as kinder critics

Fools.

>called the early models. The first
>Microbus was skewered for being a 2,500-pound vehicle with
>motive power on par with today's riding lawnmowers. The
>van's size and shape brutally overtaxed the
>1,131-cubic-centimeter, 25-horsepower engine, which was
>limited to a "long-distance maximum speed" of 47 miles an
>hour, according to the manual. The van porpoised down the
>road,

Utter rot.

>its wheels tended to fold under in turns

Really? The writer has obviously never driven one with enthusiasm.

>and it would
>all but stop in a headwind.

With only 36hp, mine would hit and hold 70mph, fully loaded, on the
flat, with headwind.

>The VW bus was both crudely primitive

Compared to what?? ALL cars were crude in the 50s.

>and cleverly
innovative

With monococque construction and 4-wheel independent suspension, very
much so. And with walkthrough an option from early days and sliding
doors from 64. VW holds the car-sliding-door patent.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut