Date:         Tue, 4 Sep 2007 16:21:59 +1000
Reply-To:     Stephen Overmyer <S.OVERMYER@UWS.EDU.AU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Stephen Overmyer <S.OVERMYER@UWS.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: Some ride height and suspension observations..
In-Reply-To:  <20070904055344.5372C2073EF@wrs-w2k-avgwy.uws.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

 

Date:    Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:23:29 -0700
From:    Jake de Villiers <crescentbeachguitar@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Some ride height and suspension observations..

Don, you might find it very educational to weigh your van on the nearest
highway scale, front first, then the total.

There is a surprisingly high front weight bias on the Vanagon which
accounts for the pathetic traction in slippery conditions. If you have
any ideas on how to rectify that be sure to post them.

                              ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~




Actually the T3 is pretty much bang on a 50 : 50 weight distribution
...with the possible exception of campers (?)

The T3 seems less able in slippery stuff than the second generation
because the T2 had a significant bias to the rear which obviously aided
traction (but they blew about like buggery in cross winds)

With the fuel tank under the cargo area floor and the radiator up front
the T3 achieves an even weight distribution.
Somewhat reduced traction in some circumstances although I rarely have
difficulty (and there's my snow chains permanently under the rear seat
just in case) but you benefit with neutral handling characteristics and
reduced (although certainly not eradicated) susceptibility to cross
winds. A trade off like everything else in life...swings &
roundabouts...

Cheers,
Steve O
NSW Australia
'92 Transporter WBX Kombi
'00 Transporter Double Cab
'03 Transporter Double Can (work truck)
'07 Passat Variant TDI
'78 Land Rover Series 3 109 soft top ute (ex-Aust.Army)