I've been nearly stuck a number of times, but not quite, and well-stuck
once when I had to be extricated in a surprise patch of sand.

When I had a 2.1 tiptop, and was driving it and my diesel westy into the
forest regularly for camping, I noticed that the Waterboxer's wider tires
handled the mud and rocks a little better.

Jim

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Kevin White <kevbob53@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an interesting thread. Having just returned home to AK from a
> winter long, 15,000 mile trip in our 84 Westy through the west/southwest,
> and having made differential and tire changes, I have some observations
>  The trip covered the Cascades, across through ID, UT, AZ, NM and CO, with
> mountain passes to desert back roads and arroyos.
>
> Like Dean, I have owned a Beetle, and a 71 Westy.  Pretty much took these
> anywhere I wanted, including (the Westy) Colorado ski bumming, Alberta and
> BC skiing and ice climbing, and what most people these days would consider
> Jeep trails.  This was all on pretty ratty tires, as student level funds
> were spent on other things.  Traction was always good enough, although I do
> remember one time, in a serious snowstorm in BC, having my buddy's pile
> into the back as we were losing traction on a stretch of road clearly
> marked "Do Not Stop: Avalanche Zone".  Problem solved, and the skiing was
> great that day.
>
> Being generally clueless, I thought the Vanagon would be a similar
> vehicle.  Wrong-O.  I found out pretty quickly (an ice covered interstate
> in Wyoming) on our cross country trip the winter before last that the stock
> configuration was not going to work for our plans for the vehicle.
>
> Last October/November saw a complete overhaul of the suspension and drive
> train, including a Peloquin differential, Airbags, and 15" Wheels with
> Nokian WRG2's.  The vehicle is now a LOT more like that old Bus, although
> still heavier and probably less nimble.
>
> The only times during the whole trip that we changed plans due to driving
> conditions involved visibility and concerns about other drivers, not the
> traction of our vehicle.
>
>   The guy's at AA Trans (RIP, Darryl, and thank you again) put it in
> perspective.  Darryl's son (apologies, I'm blanking on his name) told me
> that after installing the Peloquin in his personal Syncro, his steep
> driveway no longer needed 4WD to climb. That said, it is still a two wheel
> drive vehicle.
>
> I feel that this differential was well worth it for driving in snow, ice,
> sand, and mud. Once I was moving, I never spun a tire, and it was always
> easy to get moving, even on ice.  This was without studs.  No issues of any
> kind in sand or mud.  I assume the other type of differntial upgrades would
> also be an improvement, but have no personal experience with them.
>
> The tires and wheel size change was absolutely positive, as well.   i
> chose 215/65, and would probably go bigger if I spent all my time in the
> desert.
>
> The airbags were a great addition in regards to load management, and
> driveability in wind.  The Syncro guys claim traction benefits, and they
> are probably right, although I feel it is minimal compared to the tires and
> differential.
>
>
> Getting back to the original premise of the thread, "i'd rather drive the
> Vanagon", I couldn't agree more.  With the Westy, we were able to get
> places (even in 2wd) that most RV's couldn't dream of reaching, and the
> beat up old VW seems to draw folks; we met some really, really great
> people, from all walks of life, and all ages.
>
> Cheers
> Kevin
>