For van, the Transporter (T3?) T25 here, handles extremely well, partic when
loaded compared to other vans I have driven which get unstable and tail
happy at high loads (simulating a vehcile with flat rear tyres).

My 14 year old T25's steering is quite sharp too, without a lot of freeplay
(135,000 miles)
The ride balance between empty van (not a camper) and loaded van is good.
The absolute cornering forces are moderate to good, but definitely not low

Comparing to Boxster of course is not exactly an enlightened engineering
approach - as would comparing the handling of a Spitfire with a
Eurofighter - analgous but in absolute terms irrelevant and meaningless.

Anyway, I know what a polyester leisure suit is (I think) but whats a pocket
protector?

Clive Smith
'88 Syncro Transporter

----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Matthew Bulley" <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i don't want to sell my van!!!!!!!!!

> Andrew writes:
> "The T2 was strong, roomy, comfortable, plenty fast enough... and it
> handled extremely well..."
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> I can agree that it had some strength, in that the gearing VW provided
> allowed you to haul amazing amounts of stuff with only 68 hp. My 1982
> Westfalia is at least as strong, but in the range of "strong vehicles"
> like the Dodge Ram 10v pickup, or the Ford Diesel pickup, I'd bet the t2
> doesn't show. Try towing anything more than a tiny trailer with your t2.
> Bah!
>
> Roomy? The Vanagon is quite a bit larger than the t2 inside. No debate
> there.
>
> Comfortable? Let's see, the t2 featured un-adjustable, stinky
> horsehair/vinyl seats, rubber covered floors, ear-splitting noise,
> sweltering unassisted ventilation system and ergonomics apparently
> developed for use in concentration camps... Which would you rather spend
> 4 weeks touring the country in, a Vanagon, or old t2? I rest my case.
>
> Fast? Neither is. Let's not kid ourselves.
>
> Handled extremely well??? You are completely joking, aren't you. A
> Porsche Boxster handles "extremely well". Compared to a t2 bus, a Geo
> Metro handles "extremely well". The t2 is the farthest opposite extreme.
> In fact I wonder if ANY vehicles handle worse than a VW bus; not many.
> Even in the best shape the t2 is vague, unresponsive, drifty,
> sloth-like, and loathsome to drive.
>
> Some like t2's, but by-in-large it is a style choice, not a choice of
> reliability, handling or performance. Like wearing a polyester leisure
> suit, a pocket protector, or carrying an ornate walking stick. Some like
> the look. They like whatever comment it makes about them when they
> arrive in a t2.
>
> Frankly, the look of the loaf to me said "hippy dope-smoking burn out";
> I was humiliated and embarrassed by ours, I was weary of aging
> baby-boomers flashing a "peace sign" at me, and I danced a little jig
> when the new owner drove it away. Good riddance.
>
> Got to go change into my polyester leisure suit w/pocket protector,
>
> G. Matthew Bulley
> Bulley-Hewlett
> Marketing & Communications
> Business: www.bulley-hewlett.com
> Phone: +1.919.658.1278
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Grebneff
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:13 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i don't want to sell my
> van!!!!!!!!!
>
> Which Type 2 Transporter bus is better, the Bay or Vanagon? The T2
> was not in any way inferior to the T3. It was more basic, sure, but
> that was typical of most vehicles of the 70s. It certainly had less
> to go wrong than the T3.
>
> The T2 was strong, roomy, comfortable, plenty fast enough (in 1.8 or
> 2.0 form... forget the 1.6!) in nonAmerican versions, and it handled
> extremely well also. Only real faults might have been vaggue steering
> at straight-ahead and poor heating.
>
> Gee, the T1 wasn't bad either, though the hinged cargo-bay doors
> (sliders were not a common option in the Splits) tended to warp and
> split and the swingaxle independent rear was NOT good for towing
> heavy vehicles.