Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:06:14 -0800
Reply-To: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Heart vs. Head
In-Reply-To: <f700b5ac0911192016g68a73d94j186b9fd647a3bade@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Andrew Grebneff <goose1047@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Toyota stopped making them around 95
>
> Wrong... the first generation was made until the beginning of 2000,
> when a new model came out (not sold in USA). The current generation is
> the third. I can't understand why they make a very similar but
> different car in USA, the Sienna, but with an oddball 3.4 V6.
>
The rap I read is that here in the US, Toyota was having poor sales
because the Soccer (Futbol) Moms who buy minivans didn't like the small
(compared to other available brands) Toyota motor's power. My friends who
are Previa fans all say the Supercharged ones are plenty strong and aren't
any less dependable than the smaller normally aspirated ones. Plus at
elevation, they don't lose much power like a normally aspirated one. The
numbers (Hp vs Weight, etc) seem to indicate a regular Previa would compare
to a Vanagon with a good 2.2 Subie conversion motor.
They may have stopped selling Previa and started with Sienna in 95-96 here
in the US. They never offered any diesel ones here
> The motor is mid mounted and they are RWD, which makes for supposed great
> handling.
Only the earliest ones (1990) were good-handling, after which Toyota
> dropped the IRS and the vehicles became gross understeerers,
> especially in the wet with cheap tires like Firestones (I have slid
> right past intersections in the wet in my wife's 5-speed 1992 2.2
> turbodiesel, wheels on lock and just washing-out; my wife also has a
> diesel auto 97; both are narrow-bodied versions).
>
I didn't know about the IRS 'delete'. Thanks for that info. It seems
like right around the 90s the carmakers were advised by their legal staffs
that "oversteer=Bad! and Understeer=Good". They all began designing
understeer into every vehicle and I think they went a bit too far with it at
first...
If a driver loses control (tries to corner with too much speed for available
traction) of a car with understeer it goes right off the road front-first,
so the blame for the crash is easily placed on the driver. If a car has
oversteer, the rear end might come around, and lawyers were having success
blaming it on the car's builder for making a car that would allow the driver
to "spin-out" So cars began coming designed to handle as plowing hogs..
>
> The diesels don't get very good economy and the 2WD gas ones are noted
> as guzzlers. A 4WD will be worse.
>
The stats I've seen show the Toy..Previas to be equal or superior, fuel
consumption wise, to other minivans of the same era and significantly
superior to a Vanagon...with the AWD getting about 2-3 mpg less..I won't go
searching on the net for proof, since this is a Vanagon list and the subject
is a "Friday only" topic of small interest to most here.
I just think that for the price and in the real world of every day use,
one of those would be an excellent vehicle. It's be nice to have a
dependable comfortable quiet easy driving highway 4X4 van without paying
over $10k like you'd be looking at spending for a 'fixer-upper' Syncro...or
$60k like Go Westie is getting for them. Yeah, they are kinda "Generic"
looking (at first glance) and there is no Community like we Vanagon-eers
have..But when you can get a whole vehicle for the cost of a rebuilt Vanagon
motor, that's pretty good. And one that you can drive without even thinking
about 'rescue squads' or 'spare parts kits' or if you've paid up your towing
insurance..one you could own without even knowing what kinda motor is in
there, like I did with one Japanese import I owned in the past..
Don't get ME wrong, the Vanagon is a great vehicle. I just like messing
with different vehicles..Odd-ball ones. I owned a Porsche 928, a Hillman, a
bunch of Triumph motorcycles, etc etc...all could be called "eccentric" like
a Vanagon has been called by some..
Don Hanson
>
> Don't get me wrong, they are great vehicles, and very rigid in the
> body. But the door openings are too low for loading large items, so
> they make rather poor vans (there is one around town being used as a
> tradesman's van... probably a plumber or electrician). They are one of
> my favorite vehicles, and still look ultramodern. They'd make a great
> project vehicle; I've seen a couple that were lowered, with big alloys
> and bodykits, and they looked great. Engine swaps would be good, but
> difficult, due to the laid-down (12 degrees, I think) engine
> position... Subaru 3.3 with modified inlet?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Andrew Grebneff
> Dunedin
> New Zealand
> Fossil preparator
> Mollusc, Toyota & VW van fan
>
| 
