Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:57:53 -0600
Reply-To:     Jim Felder <felder@KNOLOGY.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Felder <felder@KNOLOGY.NET>
Subject:      Re: Van related sites I found interesting - a little off topic
In-Reply-To:  <867c46656e978ba52d1781176fd4932c@mac.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

You seem to be trying to make this objective, and it isn't. The things
you mention in this post don't bother me compared to the things I do
like about the car. I'm happy with it the way it is, just like myself I
wish it weren't so old but that's neither my fault nor the car's.

Most people whose sacred cows are vanagons would simply not agree with
you on many of your points. We don't need anyone to tell us what kind
of cars, such as Datsun 210s, would be perfect for us.

Sometimes, the only really thing good about the new is that that it has
not yet had an opportunity to disappoint us. I've had fast cars, really
fast ones. I'm over it.


Jim

On Feb 24, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Kim Brennan wrote:

> It isn't everyday that one can attack a sacred cow like VW enthusiasts
> and tell them their car(s) suck. :)
>
> The Vanagon was wind tunnel tested to address some of the concerns with
> earlier VW vans. Specifically, handling in cross winds. The Vanagon is
> better...it still has quite a bit of problem in strong cross winds.
>
> Handling of a vehicles is, to some extent, subjective. A long wheel
> base compared to body length helps make a vehicle steady on the road
> and less prone to side winds, but usually does not allow the vehicle to
> turn as quickly. Which is important to you? Similarly a wide wheel base
> helps with body lean, but again, affects manueverability.
>
> Busses and Vanagons all have short narrow wheel bases compared to body
> size. That makes them great for parking. But put a cross wind on them
> at highway speed and you are all over the place. Keyword: Highway
> speed. At low speeds crosswinds do not have as much impact.
>
> If you aren't in California, Florida or Hawaii, heat in the winter time
> is of fair importance. Engine in the rear of the aircooled buses, meant
> it was a LONG way to the front for heat....if it ever made it there.
> And forget about having sufficient heat for the windshield. Yes, if
> your heat exchangers were brand new, you had good heat (especially in
> the Bugs)...until they rusted through (which due to salty roads wasn't
> all that long in the rustbelt of North America).
>
> Power. or lack thereof. If you've never had it, you don't know what you
> are missing. For some folks having excessive power in the vehicles
> isn't a big deal. The Datsun 210's of the world are perfect for you.
> For some of the rest of us, the ability to get on a highway and get up
> to traffic speed in something less than a month, is important. The very
> design of the busses and Vanagons that I like (huge interior space)
> encourages people to, well put too much stuff in them for the capacity
> of the engine. Asking 60 hp to accelerate a vehicle loaded with 1200
> pounds of humans is asking a lot. With the Subaru engine in my Westy
> Syncro, I have a vehicle that is great, with plenty of power. It is
> COMPLETELY different than a stock engine. Power made all the
> difference.
>
> As I stated. The cartalk guys were spot on towards the weaknesses of
> the VW transporters. They don't mention the good things. The don't
> ignore the bad things. I own 3 vanagons. I looked out in the market and
> decided there was nothing that had the features I wanted (which
> Vanagons have) and the things the Vanagons lacked (power) could be
> addressed with sufficient outlay of cash. Vanagons have lots of weak
> points. I don't ignore them just because I love them. The cartalk guys
> are doing a radio program in the present day....not 1960. The world of
> automobiles has changed. In 1960 a vehicle getting 25-30 mpg wasn't
> expected to have lots of power and performance (though a few did), but
> what was judged power and performance THEN, is not the same as NOW.  A
> Porsche 356 was, what 90hp? A Ferrari, 200hp? Today, I'm not sure what
> vehicles are out there with only 90hp (in the US market). And the
> number of vehicles with 200hp (or more) is simply too many to count.
>