'cause (as we all know) a *transporter* get's you there instantly... a
*vanagon* goes nice and slow and lets you enjoy the ride.

Don't beam me up, Scotty... I'm enjoying the drive.

At 11:31 AM 10/8/2004 -0400, GEORGE J GREEN wrote:
>Honestly, considering the Vanagons started around the time Star Wars first
>came about, I'm surprised they didn't keep the Transporter name.  Sounds
>all futuristicy.
>
>"Does everything sold in the US have to be renamed because
>arrogant/obnoxious US ad agencies always think they can do better?"
>
>Yup.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Vanagon Mailing List on behalf of jbange
>Sent: Fri 10/8/2004 10:42 AM
>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>Subject: Re: Its NOT a mini-van!
>
>
>
> >but these are full-size vans, as are Toyota
> >Hiaces and Kia Pregios. A small van would be say a Toyota Liteace,
> >which was so9ld inthe US in the 80s. A minivan would be a Subaru
> >Domingo, Suzuki Carry, Daihatsu Hijet or Mitubishi L100.
>
>Why is it that automobile manufacturers feel they need to come up with
>entirely new names for vehicles for multiple english-speaking countries?
>None of those models are even remotely familiar to me here in the US! On
>that note, why "Vanagon"? Was "Transporter" not cutesy enough for VW of
>America? Does everything sold in the US have to be renamed because
>arrogant/obnoxious US ad agencies always think they can do better?
>
>John Bange
>'90 Vanagon "Geldsauger"