On 29 Jan 2005 at 8:43, Alistair Bell <albell@UVIC.CA> wrote:

> 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 :)

My experience with our '88 Westy is similar - I have driven it in some very rough
conditions, and found it very capable as long as the rear wheels stay planted, and/or
momentum is maintained. However, I have also found it surprisingly easy to unload
one rear wheel and be completely stuck, if not paying attention to momentum. My
brother's '71 bus seemed nearly impossible to stop in similar situations, at least from
my memory of driving it (more than 15 years ago...)

In snow, I've only driven a few times with the Westy, but was not impressed. I
managed to get stuck within 2 blocks of home during our '96 blizzard, in only about
8" of snow. Given a choice, I'll drive my '85 Jetta in snow over the Westy any day.
(although I was tempted to try out my Westy's new BFG KOs in the recent 3' snowfall
we had. I thought better of it when I saw a neighbour get his 4wd pickup stuck at the
end of the road...)

I do think a limited slip in a 2WD Vanagon would make a huge difference, and
probably allow it to keep up with a Syncro in many cases.

--
Shawn Wright
I.T. Manager
Shawnigan Lake School