I've always seen it as better-looking as well.  I'm completely in sympathy
with their print ad where they said "we finally got it right".  Things went
downhill after that IMO.

I love the T1 appearance, to me it's ugly-cute which I happen to love.  Not
so fond of all the chrome gewgaws on the fancy ones, makes it look like a
piece of luggage somehow.  T2, nothing wrong with it.  Neat but not gaudy,
as the devil said when he painted his tail sky blue.  T3 hits the spot.
Looked clean and modern then, still does now.

Of course it's well known all my taste is in my mouth. ;)

Yrs,
d

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Steven Johnson <sjohnso2000@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ya know, when the Vanagon first came out I thought it was an ugly
> replacement
> for the previous version of the Type II.   I've never thought it was a
> "looker" but I
> could not deny the practical aspect of it.   Now if I can have (afford) a
> vehicle that
> can take me from point A to point B while I'm doing whatever I please, then
> I'd
> take it in a heartbeat.   Would I miss driving?  Of course I would.  But
> I'm sure
> after many miles of gawking out the windows or peacefully snoring away, I
> wouldn't miss it too much at all.....   The millennials are coming and they
> don't
> care much for driving either.
>
> Oh well, just my opinion.....
>
> Steven
> 91 Westy
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Dan N <dn92610@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > not only it's ugly... it will turn the driver into a fat ugly guy because
> > he/she won't move a single muscle while getting from point A to point B
> >
>