i have to disagree with Robert here.

Having owned both a '72 and '82 (diesel) westies I can saw with no
hesitation that the Vanagon is much worse in the snow or any low
traction conditions.

The Vanagon has almost exactly 50/50 weight distribution unlike the
pronounced rear weight bias of the loaf. Also, and this applies more to
rough road/off road travel), I found the Vanagons' suspension less
compliant than the loaf's. ie I could get the Vanagon to lose grip, and
indeed be completely, un-weighted on one tire when going down roughish
roads cum creeks here on Vancouver Island.

The loaf would keep its feet firmly planted on the ground :)

If you plan on taking your 2wd Vanagon anywhere in the snow, get snow
tires. I recommend the Nokia Hakkepelitas (sp), forget the current
model number for vanagon. I Just have 2 for the rear, but they are
studded and make the van usable on snow and ice. If you can, get 4
tires, don't be cheap like me :)

Alistair

On 29-Jan-05, at 12:51 AM, Robert Keezer wrote:

> Michelle,
>
> If you just carry extra weight in the Standard
> passenger Vanagon it will be fine.
> The Vanagon does well on compact snow. the rear engine
> weight over the rear wheels helps traction.
> The low center of gravity the Vanagon has makes it
> incredibly sure footed . I have been places only 4WD
> would dare.
>
> Now that I understand what your average driving
> conditions are, then yes- better than a Bay or Split?
> Well, again, all three share the rear wheel drive
> weight in over the driving wheels , which makes for
> better traction.
>
>  Also when stopping, the weight of the vehicle shifts
> forward which pushes weight distribution front and
> rear to 50/50. Even weight on both axles means more
> stability in tricky braking situations.
>
> In your average American Van or pick-up, the weight is
> in the front so even less weight is on the rear axle
> when braking. These vehicles typically have less
> traction .
>
> Robert
>
> 1982 Westfalia