Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 8:17:38 PDT
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Steve Johnson <sjohnson@pcocd2.intel.com>
Subject: Re:RE: The Suburban saga continues
>
> Steven "Paragon of Vanagon" Johnson ;-) writes:
Great one Ric.
By-the-way. It has come to my attention that I was sounding
like I was flaming instead of discussion. If it has, I apologize.
I am not in any way trying to be obnoxious to Ric or anyone
else. Nor am I against EV's in this group. If I've made that
impression, I'm sorry for that too. So, without further 'A-Doo
I'll return to the ...er... discussion. ;)
> Oh, ok...its ok for YOUR van to be underpowered because YOU
> like it that way, but God forbid anyone else's van should
> be right?
That's the dilemma. Sometimes I want power but most times I
don't care. No one else made a better all-around performer like
the Vanagon. I had to consider all of my needs and weigh them.
> VWs have ALWAYS been underpowered when compared to other cars.
> It seems that their engineeers have this delightful habbit
> to give their cars just enough power to get the job done..
> nothing more, nothing less.
Agreed.
>Why should the EV be any different?
Because it was changed to a front engined vehicle, it is much more
like the 'Merican minivan. Despite the technical name (midi?), it
is still percieved as a minivan (as someone else stated). It has
become much less like a VW and more comparable to the 'Merican type
vans. So if your going to compete with that crowd, then I think
you should have something to compete with. And to me, more power
would the simplist way. I'll grant you, that it is more roomier
than the 'Merican minivans, but is it really an effective strategy.
I don't know at this point. The Vanagon got away with charm
and roominess in the 80's because there was a large faithful
customer base from the 70's. But I don't think that base is near
as large as now because of all the problems VW has had (definitely
not excluding with the Vanagon). I think VW has lost alot of
faithful people because of their reliability and customer service
problems. They cannot afford to not compete in every way.
>
> I would prefer to have an underpowered, understressed engine
> in my car that would last 200K miles (a la my 86 GTI), than
> to have a hotted up engine that would turn to crap at
> 90k miles.
I'm not sure how to comment on this. I don't know the reliability
of the 'Merican vans. Mini or otherwise. I think it depends on
the owner.
> First, get your terms straight. The EV is not a MINIvan, it is
> considered a MID-Sized van by NHTSA and DOT as well as by VW and
> the insurance industry. Besides, put them side by side...a dodge
> caravan and a EV. Unless you have serious depth perception
> problems, you will see the EV is taller, longer, and wider than
> the Caravan.
Don't make me laugh. I'll grant you that any person with any kind
of intelligence will see the difference, but it stops cold dead
right there. Most buyers don't have a clue about your NHTSA
statistics and are most likely going to compare it to a minivan
whether you wave the NHTSA and DOT fact sheets in their faces
or not. And I assure you, the first time they (the average consumer)
stomp on the gas pedal in the test drive, if the EV doesn't have the
same amount of guts that other vans have, then the roominess isn't
going to cut it.
>
> As to your arguements of seeing more of the competition than the
> EV, well I guess I could say the same about the Vanagon, hell
> about ALL VW vans. If you carefully look at the advertising that
> VW has done with the EV, you will note that it is NOT positioned
> to be in competition with the minivans. The choice of the term
> MID-Sized van was not chosen by accident.
>
See the above. Most buyers will not view much difference. Keep
in mind, VW had a larger base of customers at the beginning of
the 80's than they do now. If the EV turns 'em around, I'd like
nothing better. So, don't get me wrong. But I just don't see
it.
> You say other minivans are cheaper and more powerful. So what.
> 'Mericun vans of ALL sizes have been cheaper, more powerful and
> at times larger than VW vans since the mid-60s when Ford had
> the Econoline, Chevy had a Corvair version as well as a front
> engined van, and Dodge had their own version. I see a hell of
> a lot more of those vans around than Vanagons.
True, but you should also see less VW buyers now than before also.
VW must compete more than ever with the 90's competition. So,
give them what they want and need. A stronger engine (option).
>
> Again, why are you trying to compare apples with oranges. The EV
> is as much of a minivan as the Vanagon was....just because it has
> a front engine configuration does not make it a minivan. And,
> please don't argue two sides of an issue. Earlier you say you
> like your Vanagon underpowered, yet you want lots of power in a
> new van like the Caravans have. You can't have it both ways. VWs
> are built to a design philosophy...get the job done as
> practically and efficiently as possible. Caravans...look good,
> act like a car and handle like any 'mericun car should.
I disagree. In todays economy you need to give as many options
as possible with no excuses. VW can ill afford not to have as
many bargaining chips as possible. An optional more powerful
engine would have been a good one. Buyers know what the trade-
offs are. Look at other models of cars. I notice that more people
opt for the 6-cylinder than the 4. And if you don't want that option
then stay with your economical 4. Philosophy to get the job done
efficiently as possile works with alot of people, but does it
sell enough cars for the given market. I don't know, but I would
bank on it.
>
> Why do Caravans have more power? Lower center of gravity makes
> it safe for most air-headed drivers. Besides, Chrysler wants
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I loved this. :)
> them to look and act like cars...just look at their ads, so
> if a sedan has a V6, so should the Caravan. Hell, while
> VW was producing 4 cylinder vans, Detroit was producing
> 6 & 8 cylinder vans. Nothing new here.
>
And they were selling more cars too.
> VW campers have always been expensive, just compare them to
> existing camper conversions. So you are not telling me anything
> new here. Perhaps if you wish to continue on this thread, maybe
> you should index the prices of VW campers since the 70s to the
> consumer price index to see if infact $30k is unreasonable.
I'll take you up on that. I'll have to do some research. Still
are there enough yuppies out there that can afford them? Or
trust them?
>
> Second, there is no data available as to whether or not the price
> is outrageous considering the van has not gone on sale yet.
>
True. But I won't get my crow eating place-setting ready yet. ;)
> There's that word again PERFORMANCE. If I wanted performance I
> would have purchased the 1990 Audi 100 Turbo Quattro wagon that I
> was looking at at the time I purchased the EV. One more time...VW
> vans are not PERFORMANCE vehicles, never have been and never will
> be.
Maybe I should refine the word perfomance a little and just say that
an optional power-increase package would be better.
> Why did I want the EV as opposed to a Caravan? First a Caravan is
> NOT a VW. VWs are large, boxy, tall, and underpowered with a
> certain reliable, user friendly (at least to this user, and
> probably to the rest of the users on the net) and long lasting.
I have trouble with the word reliable. Just reading this mailing
list alone shows that there are reliability problems. The stumbling
idle being an example. I've known several people with this problem
and have had to get an abitrater to work with VW and them to reach
a settlement. One couple got their money back and will never buy
VW again.
Then there's the old warped leaking heads problem which was probably
the most notorious fiasco for VW and their customers.
I have to take user-friendly with a grain of salt. Siting the
heater/vent controls as an example. I think that one is self
explanatory. ;) If you're interested, I'll tell you the story of
how I fixed my main vent inlet with a piece of cardboard. :)
> A major reason for not buying a Caravan...rear licence plate trim
> on early Caravans. Ever notice that the majority of early
> Caravans are missing the plastic trim piece above the rear
> licence plate. Shit, if they cant get a damned piece of plastic
> to hold on in a non stressed job, how can the rest of the quality
> be?
I notice more Caravans period. Compared to lack of power, losing
misc. trim which is a given in all modern cars (IMHO) is a minor.
I have yet to drive/ride in any production car that doesn't have some
loose or missing piece of molding or nameplate or ensignia. So who
cares? Not Josephine/Joe Average.
>
> Other reasons:
> Lack of availablity of a 5 speed transmission. I HATE automatics.
Most people (I almost said most women, YIKES! ;) ) want automatics
and it should always be an option on the VW Vans or any car that
wants to compete.
> Lack of shoulder room. We traded in my wife's Golf GT because we
> had to haul a 14 yr old, a 10 yr old and a 1 year old (w/car
> seat) around. When we put all three in the bench seat of a
> caravan, the amount of shoulder room gained was not worth dumping
> the Golf.
It sounds like, in your situation, you took the trade-off between
a minivan and a full-sized van. In your case, I don't think
there was much choice. Either full-sized or the EV. Not
everyone has to make that trade-off.
> Handling. If I wanted a 'Mericun car, I would have bought a
> Taurus Wagon. The Caravan handles just like any pure vanilla,
> brain-dead typical US consumer car. Blind fold me and put me in a
> Caravan, a Taurus Wagon, or any other US sedan, and I wouldn't be
> able to tell the difference.
Agreed. My options were either a full-sized pick-up or the Vanagon.
Since my wife needed to make fairly frequent potty stops, I opted
for the Vanagon Camper because we can put a porta-potty in it and
not have to stop every 1/2 hour. How do you like that trade-off. ;)
My wife is going to kill me for that one. But it was a real issue
and really weighed heavily in the decision.
> Besides I wanted a NEW car, and there were no NEW aircooled VW
> Vans, this is as close as one can get for a new VW van.
Yeah, I know. What a shame heh? What can we do. Either do one
hell of a restore job or succum to the lust for new goodies. Your
definately not alone on that.
> >It's still a minivan is a minivan in my book. If you need a
> >people carrier either one will do.
>
> Again get your terms straight...mini vs midi. Front wheel drive
> does not a minivan make.
Yuk, yuk, yuk. You have the facts right, but how many other consumers
do. I know you're getting the most for your money Ric, but do other
consumers know? And is VW going to make enough money with knowledgable
customers, or do they need more of those brain-dead ones to keep their
U.S. business alive?
> Veery Eeenteresting...considering the EV is as wide as the
> Vanagon. I guess its because the outer walls of the EV are 2 feet
> thick :-)
Yeah, maybe they think you'll put in a heavy duty stereo in the
wall or something. ;)
> Judging from the list of your cars you don't have any long term
> experience with a Golf or Rabbit to qualify you to speak on the
> comparison between a golf/Rabbit and a bug, and by extrapolation,
> the EV vs. any other VW van.
No. But that doesn't explain to me how they are alike. They
appear to be as different to me as my sentra is to my bug.
And what I said earlier does not mean I don't want the EV's as
part of this group. Far from it. As a matter-of-fact, I
encourage it.
I think that the EV is the logical next step and respect its intent.
I just think if VW is to remain in 'Merica (as you put it), that
they should consider more of what consumers here want. Because if
they don't, VW will not be here anymore. And that would eliminate
a much needed option and competitor in the U.S. Market.
> Well, I'm willing to pick up the debate here. Unfortunately
> unless you are prepared to spend $60k for a new Porsche 911, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's my dream car. But unfortunately, not practical enough.
Sometimes, I want to throw out the practical all together. ;)
> aircooled rear-engined vehicle in the US is dead. Killed off by
> emission controls and safety regs. As to the watercooled vanagon
> engine, lets just say that was an error on VWs part as much as
> the "high-torque" 36 hp bus engine was in 1959/60. The only
> answer for VW was to go FWD, plain and simple. And it seems to be
> working in every market except the US. Face it, after the mid 60s
> the US was no longer its prime market for selling vans.
Agreed, See above.
> Why the 56? of all of my current cars (83 GTI autoxer, 86 GTI, 93
> Eurovan), or my past cars (57 beetle, 67 Ghia, 62 pick up, 67
> camper, 66 double cab, 68 type 3), the 56 has ALWAYS been my
> favorite, why do you think I've kept it around for 20 years.
You don't have to tell me, I already could tell it was. ;)
Steven
---------------------
Steven Johnson
sjohnson@pcocd2.intel.com
'91 VW Camper GL, '86 Nissan Sentra
Previously owned: '68 bug, '70 squareback, '74 Camper
