I disagree with your comments on the Vanagons braking performance.  I
believe the brakes on my Vanagon are excellent, the stop the van fast and do
not fade, and as for maneuverability I don't think your right either.
Although your logic makes sense I don't think it applies.  Maybe the
additional height and weight of your Syncro would worsen it's handling
compared to my 87 Wolfsburg, I would certainly say my Vanagon is capable of
making 'crisp' maneuvers.  I do have alloys with 205/70 R14 tires, and the
lower Wolfsburg suspension but I don't think it makes that big of a
difference, it's still a Vanagon.  Back to the brakes, if memory serves Car
and Driver's standard 2WD Vanagon non-Westy stopped 70 to 0 mph in 201 ft, I
think it was around '85 or so.  That's sounds quite adequate to me.  What is
the weight difference between a Syncro and a standard?

Dave Filcoff     ICQ: 4146736
coolbus@v-dub.musa.com
87 Vanagon GL Wolfsburg (129k)
88 Fox GL (148k)
St. Louis / Columbia, MO
LiMBO - Gateway VW Club - VWoA VW Club - Der Busbezitzer Gruppe

volkswagens! Vanagons to GTIs.
http://v-dub.musa.com

<SNIP>
2) braking and steering. If you see it coming and have a chance to do
something,
then steering, braking and tire adhesion are most important. The Vanagon has
relatively poor brakes for its weight. The steering is responsive but the
high
momentum tends to keep the Vanagon going in a straight line; it's reluctant
to
make crisp maneuvers. The better the tires, the better the adhesion and the
better the grip in braking and steering. For those of you opting for larger
diameter tires, not only to you lose torque while accelerating but you also
lose
torque while braking. The larger the tire diameter, the longer distance it
takes
to come to a standstill. So the Vanagon is not so great at avoiding
collisions.
The correct maneuver is to SLOW DOWN. Remember that the impact energy is
proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. A collision at 65 mph is 40%
more
destructive than 55 mph.
<SNIP>