Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:12:34 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Organization: Cosmic Reminders
Subject: Re: Gas question, seriously folks
In-Reply-To: <52AE6D60.8030501@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Depends where you are in the country.
I have a vanagon friend that drives between Bakersfield and Mexico
through So Cal.
He was quite sincere saying that for driving in that region..
you want a car that can go 85 mph easily, uphill , in heavy traffic,
with the AC on.
And I can cofirm that is not much of an exaggeration.
Stock Vanagons are from the 80's ..I believe the nation speed limit was
55 in 1982 even.
They are really 60 to 65 mph vehicles..
like 86 and up 2.1 waterboxer vanagons ...60 to 65 mph vehicles.
at 70 they are getting pretty reved out wit stock gearing ( a good 4,000
rpm ) .
they'll go 80 ..but they suck fuel at that speed ..
and besides....at speeds about 70 and above ..
they don't have the aerodynamics of flush windows..
or ABS brakes..or air bags or any of that stuff.
70 is the max practical and safe-ish speed for Vanagons .
even if they'll go 100 with a super powerful non-stock engine.
I like to go fast and be easy on the equipment at the same time.
my personal fast car ( 2.3 liters , turbocharged, intercooled gasoline )
has gearing that will have the car going 80 mph at 3,000 rpm in top
gear. Which is half of total rpm available. With one touch of a button
at 80 it will drop into 3rd ..and not be over-reved in that gear at all.
It doesn't even feel 'happy' until 80 ..
and 'Inga' has the aero and safety equipment to be ok at that speed...
but Vanagons ..nope !
Scott
On 12/15/2013 7:02 PM, JRodgers wrote:
> Pensionerd, I'm with you!
>
> I run at 55mph - maybe 60 mph at times but never more. Just chug along
> and enjoy the view through the Wide-screen. I like sitting high, wide
> and handsome. I can SEE stuff!! Can't do that in low-slung performance
> machines. Windshield angle is wrong, restricted visibility with weird
> posts or columns. Plenty of room to eat, sleep, whiz as needs be. Haul
> Gran-ma's sofa or that pallet load of bricks or the two 12 foot step
> ladders borrowed from Uncle Joe last winter or the 4X8 sheets of
> paneling for the new den or the 2X12 ceiling joist for the new garage!
> Nothing - and I mean nothing - quite compares with a big-box Vanagon.
>
> John
>
> On 12/15/2013 2:43 PM, Al Knoll wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually David, it is a high performance car.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> It has sleeping, eating, birdwatching, skiing, poppygathering,
>>> moseying,
>>> lookylooing, leafpeeping, fishing, in a "kompakt" performance package,
>>> often imitated, rarely duplicated.
>>>
>> Add a modern motor and it quietly becomes a Q-ship. A tardis with
>> chutzpah!
>>
>> Mosey on, enjoy the ride, nothing to prove, a lot to be seen on the High
>> Definition windscreen. I do.
>>
>> Pensionerd.
>>
>>
>>> What is wrong with driving within the capability of the vehicle? I
>>> have
>>> never experienced pinging with my '91 Campmobile with 2.1 Waterboxer
>>> engine. But then, I let it slow down on a grade, downshifting the
>>> manual
>>> transmission when I feel it start to lug. I drive at 58 mph
>>> generally on
>>> the highway, and I let the wind slow me down if necessary. I just
>>> don't
>>> see the need to try to drive the thing like it is a "performance"
>>> car. For
>>> that matter, I don't see the need for "performance cars."
>>>
>>> David McNeely
>>>
>>
>
|