>  >You don't have to believe in pillows and springs and socialism to know
>>that the Vanagon is not very safe in a frontal collision.
>
>The only thing that would be of value is hard data, and I haven't seen any
>yet. Anything other than that is pure conjecture. There are many vehicles
>that a Vanagon would run right over the top of, so there is no way the
>above statement has any merit.
>
>It certainly looks to be unsafe, but then so does a vanagong going around
>a corner, but in truth, its pretty stable. SUVs look safe, but we have
>learned that they are not. Looks can be, and usually are, deceiving.
>
>>It's all about mass. The Vanagon has precious little where it counts.
>
>Its all about guessing what will happen, but not really knowing.

-=-=-=-

There will never be any new hard data on a long-discontinued model
such as the Vanagon. So conjecture and model physics will have to do.

You can conjecture what a 2-ton front-engine SUV will do when it
meets a 2-ton Vanagon. One has a 1/2-ton engine in front of the
passengers. The other has scarce sheet metal. It doesn't take an
Einstein to figure out the *probable* outcome.

I like the Vanagon. But I don't delude myself on it's capability to
protect my body in a worst-case scenario.

Dave
--
Dave Carpenter

Whatever you wish for me,
May you have twice as much.

"Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think
we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering." -- Arthur C.
Clarke