Apparently an extract from Classic Car which is possibly where my information originally came from as I have been taking that magazine since it started. I don't always get round to reading it these days but I have never got round to cancelling the subscription so it still pops through the letter plate every month.
You make it sound like the Beetle remained unchanged throughout its life. It didn't - it was constantly being improved.
If you really want an example of a car which was well past its sell by date, look at the Ford Popular - a pre war design virtually unchanged right up to the '60s. And it was arguably old fashioned when first designed...
As far as I am concerned we have been talking about the early 60s Beetle but I did refer to the power output of the earlier Beetle just above your unjustified comment.
If Wikipedia is to be believed you are wrong on several counts including, crucially, the date 103E production ended.
Why are you so concerned about power output? It means very little taken out of context. But no matter.
Think most would prefer hydraulic brakes to cable ones, independent suspension, overhead valve engine, 4 speed gearbox and a top speed rather better than 60 MPH - and acceration that could be measured on a stopwatch, not calender. Oh - and windscreen wipers that actually worked.
And if you actually read the site you've given, you'd discover the Popular was basically a pre-war Anglia.
---------------- The early beetle (before 1960) was pretty lethal with cable brakes and a petrol tank in the front so any increase in power left a lot to be desired. I was in the Army in Germany and the Army had a fleet of them. We had several visits to the factory because we used to patrol the East/West German border which was not far away. We were told that VW felt a debt of gratitude to the British Army for rebuilding the factory and provided a new VW to the major in charge right up to his death. Also VW supplied vehicles to the REME for their part in rebuilding the factory. Robbie Ex-REME and Golf Owner!
Because Beetles have always been underpowered compared with their competition. Probably a deliberate design criterion intended to make the engine reliable.
But you didn't say 1960, you said 1960s and didn't even qualify that as early 60s as I did with the presumed start date for Motoring Which. Incidentally I have track down the start of the Which Magazine to October 1957 but I have failed to find any pointer for the Motoring Which.
Seems to me that you have now forgotten that the Beetle "was constantly being improved". FWIW I have now tracked down an article in Classic Car so I can say with some confidence (paraphrasing the summary that:
That it was not officially imported till 1953 and didn't acquire syncromesh on the top 3 gears until that year. For 1954 the engine size increased from 1131cc to 1192cc with power increased from 25 to 30 bhp.
1961 brought the 34 bhp engine, synco on first and more luggage space, 1962 a fuel gauge. Hydraulic brakes were not fitted until 1964.* 12 volt electrics apparently had to wait for the 1300cc Beetle.Based on, not was. At 30 bhp even this bargain basement sidevalve was as powerful as the Beetle.
*In the text of the article it actually says "brakes were hydraulic drums except on standard model 1200s which stayed mechanical until 1964".
Seemed to work as it would drive flat out from Calais to Frankfurt in 1968 and never miss a beat. Ok it probably only managed 70mph but many cooking cars of that era only magaed about 75
AJH
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
And then for an encore delayed the introduction of the Metro in favour of the Marina allowing VW to launch the first hatchback.
I replied to this message some time ago but so far haven't seen my reply. So is it just BT playing silly buggers or will I have to try and remember what I said and repost tomorrow?
If this doesn't appear either I will assume BT is being uncooperative. (So what's new?)
So name the important differences.
Heh heh. From an engine which was lucky to do 30,000 miles before a major overhaul.
The E103 Popular only ever had the one size engine. And never gained hydraulic brakes.
I have no idea what the quote above refers to. The later 100E Popular had hydraulic brakes.
It was hardly unchanged. It was always the bottom end of the smallest car in the Ford range, but it did change significantly as the smallest car (anglia) did. I think it ceased when the 105E anglia came out, or did it carry on a little longer as a copy of the 100E?
The 103E is not a car I have ever had any affinity for but the body appears significantly different to me.
What makes you think the Beetle of the same era was any different. And, unlike Ford with a host of new models in addition to this very cheap offering, VW had just the one in 1953. ISTR the VWs were by no means cheap.
If you hadn't been so keen to delete the long list of improvements to the Beetle you would have been able to relate that asterisk back to the line that said the Beetle didn't get hydraulic brakes until 1964.
FWIW I still have not seen the original of the message Dave has now replied to so Dave's butchering of that is doubly unfortunate as far as I am concerned as I can't recall exactly what I wrote.
[snipping]
Just give a lowish rating: it's easy enough to see...
As much as a brand new shaver in some cases. My shaver cost me £50, reduced from £100. Replacement heads cost £50.
Both the Marina and the Metro were truely awful cars.
Be interested to know just how the Popular changed - apart from a few cosmetics. Smaller headlamps was one - to save even more money. I can't think of any improvements over the pre-war car, let alone the post war Anglia.
The next generation Popular based on the 100E was a totally different proposition.
I also agree with a lot of comments on this thread. I don't think Which is as good as it used to be but ....
Which are pretty much the only organisation that do what they do. I can't think of anyone else that gives independent reviews. I keep subscribing partly to support their consumer campaigns.
I also think Which's job is harder than it used to be. There are many more products on the market nowadays and they are replaced with new models more frequently.
+1
I did too until fairly recently.
They may not be perfect, but are certainly better than any alternative, and as such deserve support if you can afford to.
I do wonder about the motives of those who do nothing but knock them.
I've never bought any but have looked at the prices - frightening! The electric toothbrush bought a month ago was half-price at £23; half a dozen heads will equal that :-(
I pay a fiver every few months for 5 or 10 moulded blades (like the woodman's axe, it's on its 2nd handle and about its 500th set of blades) and I begrudge that !
Nick
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.