>Andrew writes:
>"The T2 was strong, roomy, comfortable, plenty fast enough... and it
>handled extremely well..."
>
>ROTFLMAO

Wuzzat when it's at home?

>I can agree that it had some strength, in that the gearing VW provided
>allowed you to haul amazing amounts of stuff with only 68 hp.

My 1800 (with 1916 slip-in kit, no other modifications) had est
100hp, and went extremely well.

>  the range of "strong vehicles"
>like the Dodge Ram 10v pickup, or the Ford Diesel pickup

Garbage boxes. Dangerous at any speed.

>Comfortable? Let's see, the t2 featured un-adjustable,

My driver's seat was adjustable. It was also comfortable. Though I
replaced it with a rally bucket for cornering security... no more
bracing myself with my knees.

>  stinky

Not

>horsehair/vinyl seats, rubber covered floors, ear-splitting noise,

Mine wasn't noisy, though more so than my Caravelle.

>ergonomics apparently
>developed for use in concentration camps...

Don't agree. But I'm fairly tall and have very long arms, so the big
flat wheel was comfortable ... i could rest my arms across it in bith
the Split and Bay. With upright wheels I get numb arms (nerve
pinching in elbows).

>I rest my case.

No you don't!

>Fast? Neither is.

140kmh (87.5mph) and still accelerating on the flat while overtaking
isn't slow, neither is an easy 80mph cruise. American Bays mush have
been WAY down on power.

>Handled extremely well??? You are completely joking, aren't you.

No. If you are afraid to hurl a Bay around a tight twisty narrow
hilly country road, that's your problem. I'm not, and that van really
got aropund those bends. That was BEFORE I put konis into it. It was
possible to lift the inside-rear wheel, but so what? That didn't slow
it down. It was neutral, normally no oversteer (though the one time I
overcooked a corner mild oversteer did step in and save my bacon. My
Caravelle understeers badly. It's a pig. That's with correct
alignment. Understeer does NOT contribute to good handling or
enthusiast-driver enjoyment.

The US market probably got soft suspension, as well as less power.
but then, US-market BMWs handle like blancmanges because of the US
market's desire for a "comfy" ride.

>A Porsche Boxster handles "extremely well". Compared to a t2 bus, a Geo
>Metro

You mean Suzuki Cultus.

>handles "extremely well". The t2 is the farthest opposite extreme.
>In fact I wonder if ANY vehicles handle worse than a VW bus; not many.
>Even in the best shape the t2 is vague, unresponsive, drifty,
>sloth-like, and loathsome to drive.

Crap.

>Some like t2's,
>but by-in-large it is a style choice, not a choice of
>reliability, handling or performance.

I don't really like the looks of the T2, it's oddball. I don't choose
a vahicle for looks. I like it because of its versatility and
handling. The T1 is beautiful, the T3 very much dependent on trim and
color.

Stop bulleying the poor ol' T2.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut