This is a rare shot of a transport full of 1967 VW EMPI GTVs. These were a package offered by Economotors Volkswagen in Riverside, CA, owned by EMPI owner Joe Vittone. EMPI had made quite a name for itself with its hot tuned VWs starting in the mid-late ’50s, with its legendary “Inch Pincher” race/drag car.
The EMPI GTV was available in four different levels of equipment, but it was still warrantied by VW, as the modifications (in detail further down) did not violate VW’s policies. It’s possible that these GTVs were also sold by other California VW dealers.
Here’s the details of the GTV packages:
The Mk I was a Beetle with the addition of a complete set of dress-up parts, E-Z-R gear shift, front anti-roll bar, camber compensator, sports exhaust system and a set of chrome wheels. GTV badges on the quarter panels completed the package. The Mk I kit cost $437.20 on top of the price of a stock Bug.
The Mk II added a number of other parts to the Mk I’s specification, including a rear parcel shelf complete with extra speakers, a lock on the engine lid and two reversing lights. The cost of this conversion kit was $568.85.
The Mk III added some extra instruments, more dress-up parts and, best of all, a set of BRM magnesium wheels. The cost of this conversion was just $755.05.
Finally, the Mk IV package included all of the above parts, plus a new ram-induction carburettor kit, brake servo, reclining seats and a set of Boge sports shock absorbers. The complete GTV Mk IV kit retailed for $1238.75.
We can see that a couple of the GTVs on the truck are sporting the British high-quality BRM Speedwell mag wheels. I suspect the other ones were likely cheaper “mags”. EMPI had a close working relationship with BRM, which built and developed a number of EMPI VW speed parts.
One of EMPI’s first products (1958) that came to be a huge seller (over 100k) was its camber compensator, a transverse spring attached to the rear of swing axle cars, starting with the VW and then also available for the Corvair, Renault, Triumph and Tempest. It was of course an effort to reduce their unpleasant habits at the limits.
If you’re interested, there’s a good history of EMPI here.
Now that’s genuinely rare and unexpected. I wouldn’t be surprised by this type of mass production with some of the US dealer mods like Yenko Novas. I’d never heard of high-volume VW dealer mods.
One of my pet peeves about Ralph Nader’s “Unsafe At Any Speed” was his rationale that any product that was improved was therefore deficient in the first place. He cited the Camber Compensator, John Fitch’s upgrades and the 1965 redesign to reinforce his arguments that the first-gen Corvair was defective.
Was there an issue with the early Corvair’s handling? Yes, but it was more due to people not being used to its rear weight bias than anything else. On the flip side, the second-gen car was considered one of the best-handling cars out there bar none.
I am of the mind that the rear-engine layout was a dead end in the first place, because the front engine/front drive setup was far more space efficient, and therefore better suited to smaller cars. And the entire industry agreed, as the rear-engine layout was relegated to the Porsche 911 by 1980, and Porsche itself was considering dropping it in favor of the 924/944/928 at the time.
You’ve got an excellent point. That philosophy has played a giant role in the failure of US regulators and industry to keep up with the state of the various arts, for fear of being sued about the relative deficiencies in the previous regulation or product. We all suffer as a result.
There’s a general rule of evidence that evidence of subsequent improvement is not admissible in court to establish negligence, for just this reason. For instance, if a car is hit by a train at a railroad crossing, and the railroad installs a larger warning sign, flashing lights, or some such, even mentioning it in front of a jury is grounds for a mistrial.
Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says:
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
negligence;
culpable conduct;
a defect in a product or its design; or
a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
****
The court of public opinion may operate differently.
So I see. I was probably too shorthanded in saying “fear of being sued”; I was including regulators who don’t want to be hauled up in front of Congress to explain why they didn’t mandate [whatever] last year (or five years ago, etc).
The engine lid locks were a good addition. My cousin used to tell me stories of ‘midnight auto-parts’ proponents making off with the things that would have made his VWs go. He’d get in the cars to get to work, and nothing would happen when he turned the keys because everything from alternators to carburetors to ignition coils would walk away in the middle of the night. I don’t know if this went on with Detroit brands, but even BMW owners used to have many a parts thief among their numbers in the ’60s and ’70s. I also remember reading that in Italy cars had to be designed not to have any exposed fasteners, lest the temptation to plunder light housings and like become to great.
These were some pretty expensive dress up packages, which reflect that many VW buyers weren’t looking for the cheapest viable cars. VW must have been very encouraged by the phenomenon of people paying Mustang money for Beetles.
Hood locks, or more appropriately, interior hood latches were a thing by the Big 3 in the early 70s. For example, my 71 Cutlass has an exterior hood latch under the front bumper, as does my 70 Charger 500. However, my 74 Charger has an interior latch that is commonplace today.
A big problem in those days was battery theft, apart from the theft of other parts or general tampering by hooligans.
The whole EMPI-dune buggy VW scene seemed super-cool during my Great Lakes adolescence; somehow more than 50 years ago now. Here’s a 1967 ad from San Bernardino:
That’d be a brand new first edition H-Cab.
From here it looks like V6 gas power.
Interesting that steer tires look like tube-type, drives tubeless.
Between the wheelbase and hitch location, there’s one that actually does need 40 acres to turn around. LoL
“Interesting that steer tires look like tube-type, drives tubeless.”
I image both wheels are the same- Two piece truck wheels only used a removable lock ring on one side. Since a dually set up flips the outboard wheels 180 degrees, the rings are hidden.
I understand all that, but look again.
The rear wheel appears to have a drop in the rim.
The purpose of a drop is to allow tire mounting with a one-piece tubeless wheel. A tube-type multi-piece wheel, as seen on the steer axle, would not have such a drop.
Also notice the front’s 5-hand-holes, vs drive’s one or two.
Definitely not the same wheels.
I’ve been headcratching on the tire mismatch. Lol
My original thought was that it was about reducing overall height. With a third look, my thought is that the drives are actually single tires. Probably so that the VWs don’t have to “hump” when entering what appears to be a low cage without a lift mechanism.
Dropping two tires would probably necessitate using Super Single tires to preserve load capacity, thus the tubeless wheels.
You’ve figured it out. Congratulations!
I’ve seen that on a fair number of these carriers the rear wheels were smaller than normal to allow loading over them, or between them, in this case.
Exactly, the rears appear to be tubeless. Also, the rear wheels and/or tires look like they might be slightly smaller in diameter. ‘V6 Magnum’ emblem on the side of the hood
I guess I’ve never noticed singles on drives for cargo clearance on “modern” carrier trucks. Singles on trailers and tags, yes, but not on drives.
I’d bet this is one of the first, because, it coincides with
then-recently-introduced Super Single and the target cargo vehicle was narrow track enough that it worked. Probably wouldn’t work with Pontiacs. 🙂
Very cool. I have a pair of camber compensators and sway-away bars set to go on my ’62 and ’63 Type I projects. I’m intrigued by the ram induction carb kit – may have to look that up for possible inclusion on the 1384cc engine going in the ’62.
I never knew Empi did complete cars like that. They would be great collector cars today.
Personally I’m more familiar with the work of Joe’s son Darrell Vittone who founded Techtonics which is one of the leading water cooled VW tuners. Coincidentally, Techtonics is based in Sheridan Oregon, just NW of Niedermeyer country.
Found a listing for an EMPI ram induction kit, although it’s for a dual port engine:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=2441971
It looks a lot like the aftermarket Carter 4bbl carb/manifold I had on my ’65 Corvair when I was a teenager.
Surprisingly, EMPI is still a going concern and maintains a current catalog of air cooled VW accessories.
Brake servo kit? Power booster add on for Beetle? Never heard of such a thing ever existing. ’71 up Bus did have a booster servo, but the space in a Beetle for the master cylinder couldn’t allow for a booster. Interesting. There are electric remote booster systems available today, maybe that was how it was done. But I never realized Economotors sold Empi dressed cars either, so I guess anythings possible. Cool picture.
That’s quite some price premium over the price of a new Beetle back then. Still, it reads like you get a good bit for it.
I wonder if that price list was from a previous year or drawn up before 1967 factory specs/Federal requirements were finalized? It includes “2 reversing lights” beginning wiht the MkII but they were standard equipment on VWs from ’67.
Yes, that list is from 1966.
The VW dealer in my hometown of Galesburg, Illinois did something similar with their “Glitterbugs.” This was also in the mid to late 60’s. In this case they would take used Beetles and completely refurbish them and include new paint and trim. I’m not sure how widespread the practice was, but this dealer made a tidy little business of it. He had not problem selling everything he could produce.
Re the wheels – going by what specialist parts suppliers called them when I was driving aircooled Beetles in the UK, the front two cars up top have “Empi 5s”. They also sold minilite style 4 lug wheels they called “Empi 8s”. (8 spoke vs 5 spoke)
Apart from the BRM equipped cars, the others have “Empi Sprintstars” which I think were actually steel. Some suppliers referred to those as “Lemmerz wheels”.
Hood locks, or more appropriately, interior hood latches were a thing by the Big 3 in the early 70s. For example, my 71 Cutlass has an exterior hood latch under the front bumper, as does my 70 Charger 500. However, my 74 Charger has an interior latch that is commonplace today.
A big problem in those days was battery theft, apart from the theft of other parts or general tampering by hooligans.
Can someone explain for me what change(s) in suspension geometry—camber at various ride heights, for instance—are provided by the EMPI Camber Compensator ? I’m having trouble picturing what this modification does, exactly . . .
Thanks !
Kind of weird how vw would allow the empi gtv to be made but yet made the vw Mach1 made by okrasa to be scapped or be sued and made okrasa stop production..I would rather have an okrasa mach1 …yes okrasa/ vw were gonna get sued by ford also since ford said they owned the name mach1 but yet okrasa was using it in 64/65 ford wouldn’t use it 2 years later I belive.. I think ford just liked the name and scared vw/okrasa just to keep the name for them selfs …if vw and okrasa were having problems with the name why didn’t they just tell okrasa to change the name … vw excuses to okrasa was we are not a sports/ race car company but yet later on gtv was allowed to be ..it would of been cool if vw went to okrasa and had okrasa installed engines in the gtvs now that would of been the ultimate vw… vw okrasa GTV’s would of been a great name for it ….