Date:         Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:46:44 +1200
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: General/Sorta dirt-road worthiness of 2WD Vanagons?
In-Reply-To:  <698D2FE331FC794BB994CD03DFB28589010DED9C@gmgexdc02.iogmg.ioroot.tld>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>the difference between a bay and a vanagon in this regard is a result of
>front/rear weight distribution, right?  there was a thread about this a
>while ago.  vanagon seems to be 50/50, the bay has more weight in the
>back.  maybe this was a secret vw ploy to build a market for the syncro.

This may be the case with slippery going eg mud, ice... but not with
rough ground. The Bay has LONG-travel torsionbar suspension... a
wheel can fall into a big hole and still be on the ground to give
drive. In the same situation a Vanagon, with its short-travel
semitrailing-arm rear suspension, will have the wheel hanging in air
or barely touching the ground.

4WD Bay, anyone?
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut