>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?

Transporter goes back to 1949... every Type 2 is a Transporter, no
matter which version, or whether it was not marketed as such in some
countries.

>Does everything sold in the US have to be renamed because
>arrogant/obnoxious US ad agencies always think they can do better?

>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.

It's called badge-engineering. It started in either the US or
Britain, for marketing one model by different sunsidiaries of one
company (eg Roots Group & GM) as more than one model, and became
popular for exporting. It's now rife and causes endless confusion.
Sometimes it's because a certain model name is already copyrighted in
one country for a different product (not necessarily a vehisle), or
because the name there has ridiculous  or obscene meaning.

A lot of Japanese vehicles are rebadged for export to ANY country,
for some stupid reason... but the reason always comes back to the
head office of the company.

>         "Shuttle" would have worked for me...

The third & fourth generation Honda Civic wagon was called Shuttle
("Wagovan" in North America...).