We too had an Aerostat Van, 1991, extended XLT model, with 4 speed auto and a
4.0L V6.  My wife loved it because it drove like a car instead of a truck!  It,
too, was nimble and gave me great gas mileage on trips- 22-24mpg.  It's only
drawback was poor traction in the snow (we lived in NH then) and so I had to put
a couple of concrete blocks in.  We never felt unsafe in it until my wife
totaled it hitting a deer at 65mph at 5am in early Feb.  But you're right!  I
have 205/70R/14 tires on the Vanagon and it seems quite stable and nimble too.
The tires are All Season M+S and are a little harsh riding but I'll take that
any day when I have to drive over Cerro and Blue Mesa Summits.

CHRIS STANN wrote:

> Since we are discussing handling, let me throw something in for comparison's
> sake.
>
> I owed a '93 Ford Aerostar XLT (extended, dual air, bells, whistles and so
> on) and now have an '85 Weekender pop-top.  I consider myself an enthusiast
> driver (Jetta GLI, Golf GTI, Jetta GL and so on ago) and like to compare
> vehicles.
>
> The Vanagon, although equipped with marginally smaller tires, is much more
> adept in handling the twisties.  As a matter of fact, it is surprisingly
> nimble for a vehicle its size.  Throw in a few bumps and my Aerostar would
> lose composure where the Westfalia is just loving it.  The Westy feels much
> more balanced and more composed.  The 4-speed is a big plus when pushing
> through the curves as it allows me to make balance adjustments with the
> throttle.  Also, off-road the Aerostar would readily get stuck, and the
> Westy, with its greater ground clearance and independent suspension, can
> make it through some surprising terrain.  Also, the Westy has better brakes
> even though the Aerostar had rear ABS.  The Aerostar would blow the doors
> off the Vanagon in any drag race and it got 24 MPG cruising at 80 MPH with a
> 4.0 L V-6.
>
> Now, I also used to have an Isuzu Trooper.  I see how the taller center of
> gravity combined with the tall tires can make a big difference in an
> emergency maneuver.  Also, the Trooper was not any faster or quicker than my
> Westy although the Isuzu came with a 2.8 L V-6.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Donna Stewart <DStewart@CHRM.COM>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 4:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Short Tires, Tall Vans
>
> If you linked to the NHS whatever data they had none on the Vanagon (though
> a 1971 Beetle did surprisingly well - got 4 stars but there were no
> occupants!)  One thing the article pointed out is you have to look at other
> factors.  How do you drive - recklessly?  Do you wear your seatbelt?
> Vanagons generally aren't hot rods - I can cruise at 70+, but soccer moms in
> SUVs are still passing me like I'm going backwards.  Do you think if you
> have a tire blowout in any vehicle going that fast that it's going to have a
> positive outcome?  I don't think the Vanagon's center of gravity is all that
> bad compared to SUVs; remember we've got better weight distribution.  Also
> if I'm not mistaken the Vanagon is considered a "passenger" vehicle, not a
> truck, so it had to conform to a higher safety standard at the time.  I will
> say that my 1960 double cab gave me a scare one day - I turned a corner a
> little too sharp and let me tell you there's a difference between it and a
> Vanagon!
>
> >>> Ed Mellinger <meed@MBARI.ORG> 10/25/00 11:56AM >>>
> A general question for you folks running those low and/or wide tires on
> your vans... how much more cornering ability can a Vanagon handle?  I've
> always felt like the van was getting ready to roll over *before* my
> tires got to the limit of adhesion, and that's on stock tires (185 width
> and probably 78 aspect ratio, IIRC).  In the sports cars I've owned,
> tire adhesion has dominated the cornering performance.  In my Van, I
> suspect it is the center of gravity... and I don't want to find out
> myself!
>
> Just to motivate the discussion (though I hate to mention the dreaded
> S*V word here), here's a different group of consumers who is dealing
> with the immutability of the laws of physics:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/480570.asp?cp1=1
>
> I generally feel just that teeny bit smug, in my Van, when the press
> lampoons the S*V... but not when reading this article.  Wouldn't mind
> seeing the rollover-stat list that Dateline claims they have... anyone
> else have any experience with Vanagon rollovers, or rollover statistics?
>
> regards,
> Ed Mellinger
> '84 plain jane