Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:35:06 -0800
Reply-To: Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Newbie, hello all and a question(long)
In-Reply-To: <20061210.190557.-281587.3.KAYAKJR@juno.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Well, truck tire fans won't want to hear the results, but our recent 2 foot
snowfall gave me a chance to try out three different tire/van combos in
exactly the same conditions on the same morning with the same driver.
The '91 Westy with the Michelin Agilis was almost impossible to get out of
the gravel parking area in front of the house. I had to spread gravel after
shovelling away the snow. I love driving in challenging conditions but the
little drive I took through the village was hard work, and I was happy to
get it safely parked again.
My '84 daily driver with the 195/75-14 Bridgestone Turanza Ts, while still
lacking traction, was better than the '91, especially after piling all my
power tools over the engine, and I drove on down to the sailing club parking
lot for fun.
Dixie, with the 205/65HR-15 Yokohama Avid H4S' (36psi F/36 psi R)was the
most fun with a good blend of traction and slippiness, so I toured the whole
joint including up and over the southern BNSF crossing.
All three sucked in comparison to My wife's '90 Golf with Yokohama Guardex
Winters. This is their 5th or 6th winter, and they just plain get it done.
No drama whatsoever, they just start, stop and corner as long as you're not
too violent on the pedals. Almost no fun to drive in the snow at all, if you
see what I mean. Which, I guess, is the point. :)
John, have you put your tractor on the scale, or are you just guessing?
On 12/10/06, John Reynolds <kayakjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> "All in the weight, weight distribution, and tires." "1 - To much
> weight up front."
>
> I thought so too, but as he said traction is very poor "more so than
> most other 2wd cars and trucks I bring up my drive."
>
> Forget the comparison to older busses - they have a severe weight
> differential to the rear, along with other factors make these good
> traction vehicles.
>
> Compared to almost all other 2WD vehicles, the Vanagon does not have too
> much weight up front. The question is why is the Vanagon with nearly 50%
> of the weight over the rear axle worse that other 2WD vehicles with a far
> less favorable weight differential? I had a 2WD rear wheel Toyota Corona
> that seemed far superior to the Vanagon. Forget the reportedly more
> compliant suspension of the older busses - even on flat level wet grass,
> I have gotten my Vanagon stuck more than once.
>
> I have to think it is 14" tires at 48 psi. Any 15" owners out there want
> to comment?
>
> Would a 2WD Vanagon with 15" off road tread tires offer respectable
> traction on dirt roads, gravel inclines, etc?
>
> I have a syncro trans with locking rear diff. that hopefully gets
> installed at the end of 2007 camping season. Perhaps this with 15" tires
> will give respectable performance. Wish I had taken the Syncro gas tank
> out to follow my initial plan of increasing rear weight bias.
>
> John R
> 86 Westfalia Weekender
> 54 Ford 640 Tractor with far less favorable weight differential.
>
--
Jake
1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
www.crescentbeachguitar.com
|