What is R&T?
Are the figures the correct way around? Common thinking is that the rear is
heavier than the front, but your information says other wise, obviously this
is the point you are making!
Regards
John.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alistair Bell" <albell@UVIC.CA>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 21:20
Subject: Re: balljoint leaking grease

> A couple more data points Stuart,
>
> from R&T tests:
>
> 80 vanagon aircooled , pass van: fr/rear (%) 55/45
> 83.5 vanagon wbx, pass van: fr/rear (%) 56/44
>
> Yes your correct, other vans don't have such an even weight distribution,
> some models are evn more "front heavy"!
>
> Alistair
>
>
>
> on 2/20/01 10:39 AM, Stuart MacMillan at macmillan@HOME.COM wrote:
>
> > I think that the weight balance is not so evenly split on the standard
> > Vanagon, and particularly rear-biased on the Westy.  I'd be curious to
> > see the specs for these if you have them.
> >
> >
> > CHRIS STANN wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's disspell some persisting rumors about the Vanagon's weight
> >> distribution.  Here's a snippet from a previous post.  Look at the
weight
> >> distribution:
> >>
> >> Let us shed some light on the Vanagon's weight bias.  The following
specs
> >> are for the '86 Syncro Westfalia.
> >> (http://www.tiu.net/~des/vw/reports/synchro.html)
> >>
> >> DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITIES
> >> Wheelbase ........................ 96.6 in
> >> Track, F/R ....................... 62.4 / 61.8 in
> >> Length ........................... 179.9 in
> >> Width ............................ 72.6 in
> >> Height ........................... 82.1 in
> >> Ground Clearance ................. 8.3 in
> >> Curb Weight ...................... 4000 lb
> >> Weight distribution, F/R ......... 49.3 / 50.7 percent
> >> Fuel capacity .................... 18.4 gal
> >> Oil capacity ..................... 4.2 qt
> >> Water capacity ................... 18.5 qt
> >
> > --
>