Comment by linksnapzz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by linksnapzz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd say that the "minivan == unit-body/transverse engine/FWD" taxonomy is the correct one.

I mean, what are the counterexamples?

-the body-on-frame/rwd/solid axle Aerostar/Safari/Expo were...slightly smaller than the domestic quarter ton vans. not really mini, plus all the drawbacks of high floor height, bad fuel economy, truck handling etc. of the full size vans.

...which is why they aren't sold anymore.

-the VW Type 2/Vanagon:

Customers didn't like rear-engine handling. Or two-digit hp in a 5000lb gvw vehicle. Plus it's hard to make forward control layouts pass front-impact tests. So, a design dead-end.

-Mid-engined Japan-vans

High floor height, weird service position, once again, crash safety became an issue.

Of course, I'm happy that all these vehicles existed, and surely many customers felt their advantages outweighed their deficiencies...but on the whole, the Chrysler model ended up defining the market as it exists today, in the same way the Mercedes W124 defined "luxury car".

Not that you're generally wrong otherwise, but the Vanagon was around 3000 lbs curb weight (and a bit more for campers). 5k was the GVWR, i.e. max safe loaded weight.

(Edit: missed gvw when I wrote this, but it's unusual to typify a vehicles P/W ratio by GVWR. That's more a comment on its structure and suspension.)

Yeah, I couldn't remember the curb weight off the top of my head, but I did remember the 5k gross. It still describes a very sturdy, solid one and a half ton truck with a one ton capacity frame and suspension...powered by a 80-90 hp gas (or 52 hp!!) diesel motor. :-)

Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different....

I've got the 52hp diesel Vanagon camper weighing over 4,500 in my garage. Freeway performance is..... underwhelming.

67bhp in our '81 Westy. I view keeping the speed limit on any incline to be a victory. You diesel owners I view as masochists. :-)

Had there been the Oettinger flat-six available in US-market transporters from the beginning, perhaps the minivan market would've turned out a little different....

Wanna know why inline fours bolt up so nicely in Vanagons? Because VW originally intended to put an inline in them. I mean, do you really think VW wanted a an air-cooled engine with friggin' ignition points in a 1980 model? And an anemic, decades-old engine design in a 4000lb. (in the case of our Westfalia) vehicle?

Had VW not done their usual (IMO) half-assed planning and design, it might have been different. But then they wouldn't be VW, would they? :-)

My Westy Vanagon is around 4,500 lb.

I won't argue with an owner (my own personal experience only extended to the 70s type 2s, not 80s) but I'm surprised. The source I checked didn't show a model over 3500. It's estimated for the campers, but 1k lbs is a hell of a margin.

It doesn't mention Westfalia models directly, though, unless they're one of the model numbers in the breakdown.

http://vanagon.com/info/years/1981/index.htm

Let me clarify... 4,500 lbs is about what it weighs with me and the junk I carry around on a daily basis. Very possible for it to be well over 5,000 lbs with a passenger and camping gear, full fuel, water and propane tanks.

See: http://www.roadhaus.com/tires/load.html

Got it, that (and the diesel comment) makes a ton of sense. Thanks!

1981 Vanagon Westfalia is aircooled. Contrast that with the 1982 diesel with a heavier engine block and a cooling system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com