Date:         Sun, 21 Feb 1999 14:15:22 -0800
Reply-To:     "Laurence W. Burt" <lwburt@SPIRITONE.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Laurence W. Burt" <lwburt@SPIRITONE.COM>
Subject:      synchro vs 2wd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Folks

I'm a newbie to this list and posted a comment about "underpower" and
engine options in response to Mark Drovdahl's 2/18 post. At least one of
you took offense to my comments about synchros vs 2wd. I have an 86
Westie 2wd. Here's what I said:

"If I understand your post correctly, you have a synchro. This is a
major reason your van is underpowered. I thought about getting a
synchro, but decided against it because of the substantial extra weight,
poorer gas mileage, lower gearing, mechanical complexity, poorer turning
radius, etc. The few times per year I need the traction I carry chains,
but I'll have to admit there have been several times I've wished for a
synchro!"

I'm not the least bit interested in flaming. As I said, there have been
several times when I've seriously wished for synchro, but given where I
live and my usage, it didn't make sense. I'd like to see a rational
thread discussing the DIFFERENCES between the two that will help all of
us decide which makes sense for us. Certainly the synchro has better
traction in snow, also in rain and generally. Am I wrong about the
drawbacks I listed? Can you folks help with specifics, like the
difference in weight, gearing, gas mileage, maintenance costs, turning
radius, overall height, etc. One thing I've always been curious about is
the gas tank, which seems to be in the rear on synchros. Is it the same
size? Any more or less safer to have it back there?

Larry Burt, lwburt@spiritone.com