>when i decided to buy a 80's vintage snow-country hauler, it was between
>the 87-89 4wd toyota van and the syncro.  they have similar boxy
>styling, and fold-flat rear seats.  i went vanagon because they're way
>bigger and there are far more parts/mechanics/listgroups available.  has
>anyone had experience with both vans?  i'm still fascinated by the
>toyotas.

The Toyota Liteace series are excellent machines, with a huge number
of variants (and two entirely different body-styles available in the
mid-to-late 80s) including cab-chassis, engines etc. As you say, they
are quite small. They will do fine for most folk, but though I
considered buying an upmarket turbodiesel, the size put me off.

>I don't have much to disagree with regarding this assessment except that
>the the VW Type 2 vehicles are not, and should not, be defined as
>minivans.  Minivans are built on car chassis and the Vanagon is clearly
>built as a truck, albeit a small one.  I think the only thing that the
>Vanagon has in common with the Chrysler product is the word "van."  With
>that in mind, I think Chrysler can lay claim as the inventor of the
>minivan.  VW can lay claim to the inventor of the small truck, perhaps?
>Were there other small trucks in 1950?

There were lots, including "competitors" from Germany & Britain...
though anyone who could contemplate buying one of those when the Type
2 was available needed their heads read...
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut

HUMANITY: THE ULTIMATE VON NEUMANN MACHINE

DEMOCRACY: RULE BY THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR