Sorry for the late reply. Long weekend... :)

---JordanVw@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-06-11 09:54:52 EDT, vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM writes:
>
> <<  Chrysler was quicker to realize this and put the turbo, and
>  eventually the V6, in their minivans  >>
>
>
> btw, these V6's in the chrysler minivans are pure garbage....next
time you see
> a oil burning, mid eighties chrysler minivan, look on the front
fender...it
> will say V6.....nearly all of the V6 models have bad rings, and burn
oil....

I understand completely, but it's not like that's any worse than many
other front-drive Chryslers from that time. :( All I am saying is that
Chrysler addressed the power issue for a considerable while before VW
did. What I am not sure of is why VW didn't throw a flat-6 into the
bus or Vgon. Had they designed the rear deck to fit around the Porsche
engines instead of the Type IV, the Vanagon would have enjoyed
considerably more success in the US. Sure, I concede that VW would
have had to mod the engine and design a more durable tranny. But after
spending who-knows-what to design the T-3 (I know VW-AG bet the farm
on this vehicle), it would make perfect sense...

BTW, I dig the suggested T-5(?) pictures. :)

Sam
==
"Punk's not dead (it just sucks right now)"

|                     "I'm not Punk, I'm New-Wave!"

...quit whining...
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Backstage/6507

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com