Vehicle makers say US fuel economy standards put a million jobs at risk

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Fingie

when there was no soccer mom SUV's or target markets but just the car and the expectation that it gets S**t done.

Older cars used to be less "specialized", but for those who needed an equivalent to the modern soccer-mom-van the good old Transporter could get the job done. Some versions of the split-window Kombi, at least here in Brazil, were available with differential lock as a factory option, and I'm sure they could fare better than many modern SUVs in off-roading...

[rmay635703]

Most old cars were cavernous and likely could fit more than most mini van like CUVs on the market.

Those who needed a mini van got a 3 row station wagon and again many of those had more room than a modern suburban.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Some versions of the split-window Kombi, at least here in Brazil, were available with differential lock as a factory option, and I'm sure they could fare better than many modern SUVs in off-roading...

How A Former Brazilian President Made The Most Advanced Beetle

These "Itamar" Fuscas retained the archaic pre '65 Beetle main body, with its thick window pillars, but most everything else got a refresh. .... There was also a catalytic-converter exhaust system with the exhaust exit in the fender, and, incredibly, ABS brakes.

Can you get your hands on 92-96 Fusca brake parts?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Can you get your hands on 92-96 Fusca brake parts?

Maybe. But I'm sure they didn't have ABS not even as an optional feature. Some sort of load-sensitive proportioning valve might be more likely but I also never messed with a post-'84 Beetle to figure it out...

[freebeard]

Oh well, I'd settle for an exploded diagram, just to see what would be required.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Remember the Brazilian Beetle was not "advanced", it still relied on the torsion-beam front suspension and the rear swing-axle. I don't remember where I found some reports that the torsion-beam made it more difficult to fit ABS, but hey, nowadays even some low-displacement motorcycles are fitted with ABS...

[freebeard]

My candidate would have a ball-joint front end and a Type III swingaxle rear.

One would think there would have to be a resolver of some sort on each brake and a retarder. It might swap out with normal backing plates.

If it exists.

[ThermionicScott]

What's special about the Type III rear end, as opposed to a pre-'68 Type I?

I've heard good things about the ride of the Type III front but have spent almost no time driving one.

[freebeard]

Generically, nothing but the width of the brake drums. But this particular one is has 5-speed conversion.

The Type III rides nicely because the front and rear subframes are mounted in rubber bushings. But the front framehead has four 'fingers' the subframe mounts to. If it's tweaked the wheel alignment becomes a struggle, and it's easier to tweak than the Type I framehead. The Type I beam will bend before the framehead — I know I've done it.

For stoutness: Link-pin > ball joint > (Type III or Macpherson strut). Not sure how the last two sort out.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

My candidate would have a ball-joint front end and a Type III swingaxle rear.

Though a swing-axle rear end might get its advantages when it comes to reliability, the semi-trailing arm setup seems more suitable to higher speeds. There are some claims that a beefier front stabilizer bar can compensate the weaknesses of the swing-axle at higher speeds, but I'm not so sure about that.