Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:34:50 -0500
Reply-To:     John Anderson <janderson@IOLINC.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Anderson <janderson@IOLINC.NET>
Subject:      Re: SUVs VS TINCANS!
Comments: To: vanagon@vanagon.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> No.. Vanagons are classified as TRUCKS and so are SUV's.  So says EPA
>
> Yau-Man Chan
> 87 GL "Truck"
>  >>
>
>then why does it say "'84 VW station wagon" on my title???
>
>chris
>'84 vanagon


Damn well better believe they are "station wagons" to the federal
government.  VW was very picky about that classification early on as it
allowed them to avoid the import taxes levied against them in the "truck"
arena.  The main reason the single and dual cabs never found their ways in
greater numbers into the country.  Most state titles I have seen in the mid
atlantic and elsewhere I have purchased vans (PA, WV, DC, MD, NJ, VA) carry
the proper "station wagon" designation on the origional title and continue
it if the guy/gal making minimum wage+ at the DMV takes the time to write it
as such on mine, though a lot say, aren't those vans?  Was more common to
see it during the Bus years though.  Regardless it is still a "truck" per
say but not really in an American sense surely.  Yeah they have a hefty
ladder style suspension but unlike any American offering of the 60's vintage
are semiunibody creations, never with a seperable frame.  And of course full
independent then IRS suspension became extant back when Duntov was begging
Chevy to let him put one on the vette (not even with CV's) let alone it
trickling down to any truck.  So the wonderful VW "station wagon" as we all
well know has always been an eclectic mix of technologies, some advanced,
some painfully archaic and held far too long into the 80's, which is why
they kissed their market share goodbye in '85 or so.

John
janderson@iolinc.net