Top Access Hatch

[whc03grady]

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that Volkswagen was gracious enough to give me access to my engine from the top at all, but we still can be jealous of the hatch that Vanagons get, right?



VW obviously thought a top access hatch was a good idea, so why didn't they go for broke from the beginning and give us a huge Vanagonlike hatch? Or huger? Would it've been harder to make? Reduce structural integrity? Or did they think we'd only want to get at the carbs or something? They didn't think it'd be nice to, say, look at the distributor from directly above?

"Ve vill giff you ze sighs oxcess haughtch ve vant to giff you und you vill like it, bekommen sie?"

Sometimes I wonder how hard it would be hack a Vanagon hatch in....

[Xelmon]

From the little amount of time I screwed with busses, I can see a few reasons:
* Since you have an end access hatch for the engine, you don't need a huge top hatch.
* Smaller top hatch is lighter.
* On the contrary, vanagons do not have an end access hatch, you have to be able to get to everything... Enter full top access hatch.

We could test the structural integrity part too, all we need is a 1:1 full-detail model of the bus that we can perform FEA on. :)

[poptop tom]

Where the heck would they have hung the fan?

[Amskeptic]

Definite structural integrity issues. The Vanagon was the first fully-computerized designed bus. They managed to reduce the frame rail/body post dimensions by 40% with no loss of rigidity even with the lower cargo deck.
I like the smaller bus access, it gives my huge pot belly a nice wide place to spill over and spread out as I lean into the engine compartment.
Colin

[tristessa]

VW did eventually give the Bay a larger engine hatch, starting in Mexico around '88 or '89 and continuing on through the Brazilian watercooled era. Hard to find pictures of, unfortunately -- this is the best I've found.

[satchmo]

In 1972 VW didn't think you needed any hatch at all.

Tim

[airkooledchris]

if you go further back, there was no overhead hatch and even more room than the Vanagon!

[Kubelwagen]

And a handy crank for winding it up!

[Amskeptic]

And a handy crank for winding it up!

And a big petrol bomb next to the ignition coil!
ColinThemWasTheDays

[Kubelwagen]

Looking at the S. American (or Mexican?) picture, I wonder why they never dropped that engine in any of the rigs up here. Was the Vanagon just considered too heavy for it? Can't be smog issues, they were selling them in other things right?

[tristessa]

I don't think that engine has ever made it to teh USA, that's the EA111 four-cylinder engine from the Polo. Far as I know we only ever got the EA827 four-cylinder and the occasional EA831 in the Porsche 924...

Post-1988 Mexican Bays did get the EA827 though...

[vdubyah73]

the 924 engine was an audi engine. audi stopped making them, amc/rambler had purchased the right to manufacture and use the engine in the usa. porsche found themselves using amc/rambler engines for a short period of time.

[Xelmon]

I don't think that engine has ever made it to teh USA, that's the EA111 four-cylinder engine from the Polo. Far as I know we only ever got the EA827 four-cylinder and the occasional EA831 in the Porsche 924...

Post-1988 Mexican Bays did get the EA827 though...

the 924 engine was an audi engine. audi stopped making them, amc/rambler had purchased the right to manufacture and use the engine in the usa. porsche found themselves using amc/rambler engines for a short period of time.

And my daily trivia quotient has been fulfilled.

[Amskeptic]

Was the Vanagon just considered too heavy for it?

Vanagon is 300 lbs more than a Bay. Both vehicles are "light" by today's grotesquely bloated standards.
Colin

[Kubelwagen]

True, it just makes me wonder why they didn't do the South Africa type engine in the later US vanagons? Must be have been a cost thing.