

| Subject: | Re: off road in a Vanagon Was Tires |
| From: | Jim A |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Aug 2000 20:36:51 -0700 |
I beg to differ... My experience tells me that the Vanagon is lighter, not
heavier. That would be in keeping with engineering advances made over the
years. I suspect that if one put a couple of sacks of sand in the back they
just might get through some of the rough stuff.
Jim Arnott
WetWesties
Union, OR
CHRIS STANN wrote:
>
> The old Breadloafs are lighter than our Vana-gones. So they tread more
> lightly. They have more rear-biased weight distribution plus lower gearing.
> Every little bit helps.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim A <jrasite@eoni.com>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: off road in a Vanagon Was Tires
>
> > I'd be curious to know the weight of a V'gon vs. a loaf. My ASI
> conversion
> > ('77) crosses the scales at 4750 two up, loaded for camping. Anybody KNOW
> how
> > much their V'gon weighs?
> >
Unca Joel writ:
> my 88 bus non-camper weighs in at 3640 lbs empty (but full fuel). the
> 87 full camper weighs in at 3960 empty (but full fuel). :)
>
> joelHave something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »