OT - Which ?

just to set you straight about one thing, Beetles had hydraulic brakes from

1950. i had a 1954 Beetle in 1963, if i had to go back to that time again and buy a 9 year old car with the same amount of money that i had available it would be another Beetle. unmercifully threshed (no speed limit on the M1 for another two years) but totally reliable. What were you driving in the early 60s ? -
Reply to
Mark
Loading thread data ...

Indeed. I've never owned a Beetle or even fancied one, but could see the appeal. Some 20 odd million buyers can't be all wrong.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Quite a big change then? It did evolve.

Reply to
<me9

A small bicycle.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Hired em enough in Mexico and S Africa.

dont last.

engines never properly cooled and tend to be of the 50k mile variety as a result.

OTOH almost anyone can fix one.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You *shave* your teeth? :-P

Reply to
Andy Burns

Only in the same way as the current Beetle evolved from the original. It shared the same name.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I've no idea how well those were built.

Or serviced. The reason the Beetle was popular in the US in the '50-60s was its reliability and long life compared to other small cars. Until the Japanese came along.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

You sure about that. Up thread there is a reference to cable braked Beetles and the article I cited certainly states that Beetles didn't have hydraulic brakes until 1964 before muddying the waters with that reference to 'standard models' without explaining the distinction.

I moved into a shared flat in 1964 and one of my flatmates had a Beetle. All I can remember from then is that it was very tail happy in the wet. It couldn't have been completely gutless as he towed a glider trailer with it.

Since the Beetles of that era couldn't reach 70 mph the lack of a national speed limit is irrelevant.

From 1962 - 1939 Rover 12 (IIRC that cost me £14) 1963 - 1955 Vauxhall Cresta 1964 - 1952 Riley 2.5

All would (and regularly did) exceed 70 mph.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

I had a lodger in the 70s who had a Beetle which I suppose must have been a 1300 or possibly even a 1500 by then. (I never drove it). ISTR that his model had problems with cracked cylinder heads which perhaps points to the 1500.

One day, after said lodger had been away for a week or more, his girlfriend turned up without him but with his car, a pair of new exhausts and a request for me to fit them. Not particularly easy despite the apparent simplicity.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

There are load of Beetle clubs out there which give the history of the development.

April 1950 saw the introduction of hydraulic brakes on all export models.

formatting link
and go to technical.

Morris Minors were tail happy in the wet too. Triumph Heralds even more so. But decent modern tyres make a big difference to both. In '64, it was very likely running crossplies.

Please quote the source of this information. It's wrong.

I'd be interested in the figures for the Rover 12. With the top speed accurately measured as an average of a both ways run. To compare to those quoted for modern cars.

I'd hope both the Cresta and Riley could exceed 70, given they have engines twice the size of a Beetle.

You criticise the Beetle's handling but drove a Cresta? ;-) The Beetle would leave it for dead on any road which wasn't straight.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

You have to remember that the beetle is the only car VW ever produced with above average reliability. This was due to its simple nature and a very under stressed air cooled engine. There was less to go wrong.

I have never owned a beetle either and have no intention of ever owning one, I think they are poor by any standard.

Reply to
dennis

Only when they get really furry !

Nick

Reply to
Nick Leverton

Thats certainly rubbish. I had a morris Minor as my first car ( second hand) . It was fine.

But if that came from Which? it is likely to be rubbish. You cant believe a word Which? writes anymore. Middle class tripe for middle class old hippies and new fangled greenies.

I have been a subscriber to this beast since the mid 1970's ( still get it because OH likes it - but its trash. Illl informed trash) Thats off topic I know.

Reply to
sweetheart

snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk...

ISTR They were expensive in their day compared to similar sized models,

They sold on their legendary reliability. They were noisy and slow. Didn't matter they always started on the button. In those days Lucas starters and dynamos only lasted about 30,000 miles I.M.E.

Their best trick was their air tight cabin, Couldn't close the door without cracking open a window.

If you didn't service them they broke down as I found out to my cost.

Engine was easily pulled out for repair. Jack up the tail, loosen all the bolts on the bell housing, place spare wheel under engine and pull hard on the exhaust pipes.

Paul Mc Cann

Reply to
fred

I am a bit busy at the moment so don't have much time to research but Classic Car magazine is just a room away. :-)

There was a world of difference between the handling of the MM and the Beetle. Perhaps not so much between the Herald and the Beetle but didn't that also have swing rear axles (even if that effect wasn't made worse by the weight distribution).

My memory is wrong?

In the days when Classic Car used to quote top speeds in its price guide it gave 69 mph for the 53-57 Beetle and 72 for the later 1200.

IIRC the Rovers top speed was in the order of 75 mph, the Cresta 83 mph and the Riley mid 90s (or 100 if you wanted to believe the speedo).

Size, as they say, isn't everything. Both cars were bigger than the Beetle as well as faster. ISTR that the 2.5 Riley had a rated output of

100bhp. That compares very favourably the 1200 Beetle at 34bhp. (Donald Healey used an uprated version (110bhp) of that engine in one of his cars).

At the other end of the spectrum the Mini with an engine two thirds the size had the same power output as the Beetle.

Absolute nonsense. Whatever it was that attracted Beetle buyers handling wasn't part of it.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

.

It was cheap? Most of the friends I know who had this little car bought it for being cheap. They were mainly teen and twenties boys ( usually students). The car was noisy, uncomfortable ( and that was just as a passenger in the seats, nothing else) and it was horrid to drive. Reliable? Most of them sat on drives or lanes most weekends being "fixed" by their owners. because they had something or other wrong. Thats what I remember.

Reply to
sweetheart

The Herald and several other Triumphs were infamous for the rear axle design which lead to "jacking up" and "tucking under".

Reply to
Mark

Apart from not having a water based cooling system, what else about the car was 'simple' by the standards of the day?

Were you in a position to buy and drive a car at the time mentioned which started this discussion? ie roughly 1960?

Only those with an interest in classic cars would dream of owning a Beetle these days.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Sigh. I passed my test on one. And have driven virtually every version. Any car with better front suspension than rear can be tail happy in the wet. And the Minor had quite decent independent front suspension - a very basic rigid rear axle. Of course that's not to say a crude independent rear suspension setup could be worse. The Herald proved that.

Make up your mind if you're discussing Which now or 40 odd years ago.

It's actually on topic. But would be more to the point if you gave reasons.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

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.