So much has been written about the VW Beetle that it’s a bit daunting every time I take it up. But like the moth to the flame, I can’t stay away, especially when I’m handed the keys to one, that’s painted purple, no less. My goal was not so much to wallow in nostalgia, having racked up lots of wanderlust miles in two of these back in the early seventies. I wanted to know how it felt to drive this old. Memories are not always reliable, but more significantly, our standards and expectations have changed vastly since 1938 or 1969.
More specifically: Could a car designed 85 year ago still be a viable daily driver?
There’s a good reason for the VW’s longevity, and why I pose that question. What other car that came to fruition in 1938 could even be considered as a daily driver in 2021? Of course there are those rare folks who will decide to drive a Model A or such for a year or so, but the compromises are inevitably substantial. Yes, the VW benefited from a steady stream of improvements over its lifetime. But if it hadn’t been for its intrinsically advanced design, that undoubtedly would never have been the case; the VW was resuscitated in 1945 because it was such a viable design.
What were those key features that made it so ahead of its time, and kept it competitive for decades to come? Four wheel independent suspension was a key one. A light semi-unitized body with good aerodynamics and room for four adults.
Perhaps most importantly, a lightweight air-cooled boxer four that was oversquare, with its bore significantly larger than its stroke. This was very unusual for the times, and it’s what allowed the VW engine to have low wear, smooth running, and made it suitable for many more decades of use and further development. Try to find another engine from 1938 that had such a short stroke (in relation it its bore), short connecting rods and modern combustion chambers, all key factors that made it so suitable for use in 1969 or 2021.
Enough of the history, but the VW’s brilliant design, engineering and execution in 1938 are the only reason I’m about to get in one and drive it like an ordinary car. Which was very much not the case when I drove a 1936 Plymouth.
This 1969 VW belongs to Katie, a former tenant and now a neighbor. It was given to her last year by her uncle and cousin, who jointly restored it. Presumably they had their fun with it and were ready to move on, with Katie the beneficiary. She was a bit apprehensive at first, as she’s very much not a “car person”, and thought about selling it. But its charms have changed her attitude, and now she’s an enthusiastic owner and drives it regularly, although she does also have a Ford Escape hybrid. I’ve been enjoying seeing and hearing it come down our street. And I finally took up her offer to drive it.
It’s mostly stock, although it might possibly have 1600cc instead of the original 1500. It had an aftermarket higher-flow carb, but that was a bit problematic (stalling out in corners and such) and her mechanic replaced it with a stock Solex unit. It has the original single port heads, and when new, was rated at 53 gross hp @4200rpm; more accurately 44 DIN net PS, a fairly close equivalent of SAE net hp ratings. So…44 real hp.
That’s more than my 1200s made, as well as my brother’s 1300 which I took over for a while. Compared to these smaller engines, this is a torquer, making only a few more hp than the higher-revving 1300 but significantly more torque (78 ft.lbs @2600 rpm).
The only mechanical modification are front disc brakes, presumably from a K-G, but I’m not sure. I image there’s plenty of aftermarket ones too. Obviously the wheels are not original, as well as other cosmetic items.
The interior has an aftermarket wheel, seat covers, and nicely done plywood door cards. Katie was a bit apologetic about the seat not going back any further. No worries; I spent untold hours in these, often 10,12 or even 16 hours at a stretch. I’m tall and narrow, like the VW, and I always fit in just fine.
Sure enough; the muscle memory is instantly awakened, and it feels eminently familiar. The sensation of the dash being in your lap, closer and higher than in modern cars, may be disconcerting to the unacquainted, but I’m right at home, in a good way. The key thing is that the seats are high up, and there’s gobs of headroom to spare. That’s much more important to me than width, of which there obviously isn’t much. The VW was designed for the typical lean bodies of 1938, or 1969.
The engine started almost instantly, resulting in that familiar putt-putt idle, a consequence of the timing of the exhaust pulses in a flat four. Subarus all have it too, in a more muted way.
The aftermarket piston shift knob was the only fly in the ointment, at least so far. Cold and hard-edged; not exactly what a hand wants to feel when reaching for the shifter. I may need to buy her something a bit more comfortable. The gear pattern was a bit wider and the throws a bit longer than I had remembered. No wonder quick-shift kits were so popular.
I shoved it into first and let out the clutch, which engaged very positively and smoothly. The steering wheel instantly let it be known that it was connected to the front wheels via a direct mechanical connection. Sure, it’s a wee bit heavy compared to the power steering we’re all so used to, but it quickly lightens up under way.
There’s some resistance in the steering when initiating a turn. It’s a combination of it being manual as well as the geometry, and it has the presumably desired affect of creating initial understeer. It felt a bit heavier than I remembered; was that faulty memory or something about this car, or did the earlier VWs steer a bit lighter?
The key difference between the VW’s steering and the Armstrong steering in my F100 is that once under way, especially at speed, the Ford’s steering is shockingly dead and vague, with lots of good old American play. Yes, it’s better since I replaced some bushings, but one can still turn the wheel almost a quarter turn while doing 60 with minimal effect. Not so on the VW.
One feels every little change in the surface of the pavement as well as any change in the car’s attitude. There’s very substantial feedback; more than I remembered. It’s fairly quick and accurate, although not quite up to rack-and-pinion standards. I found myself driving with both hands on the wheel; not because I had to, but it’s just so much more engaging than modern power steering. One wants to feel that feedback, preferably with both hands. And that fine polished wood rim makes that experience even more appealing.
Even with the higher (lower numerical) gearing of the 1500 compared to the 1200/1300, first gear doesn’t last long. It’s low, for a good reason: to be able to get under way even on the steepest grades and with a full load. It’s also what contributed to the VW’s remarkable off-pavement abilities; I never had to turn back once on the steep jeep mining roads of Colorado.
Second provides a nice bit of thrust to get up to speed, as air resistance is not yet a factor. And third makes a very versatile gear for around town.
I did notice that I was shifting at a higher indicated speeds than the little red lines suggested. They seemed a bit low; sure enough, they’re still the same recommended shift points as for the 1200, which had lower gearing; VW couldn’t be bothered to change them. The shift speeds for maximum acceleration are actually 25, 45 and 65 mph; I didn’t take it that high.
The VW engine lets you know when it’s time to shift: its revs start to flatten as it hits its rather low power peak. It’s quite different than in a modern engine, which will just keep screaming higher and higher, if pushed hard and long enough.
Acceleration is perfectly adequate in normal city driving. Obviously, the rate of acceleration starts to slow down noticeably above 55-60 or so, depending on factors like if there’s any grade in the road. I took the Beetle on my favorite stretch of nearby driving road, out Lorane Highway to King Estates Winery and back; some 40 miles or so round trip. It’s a perfect country road/highway, with varying terrain ranging from some moderately tight curvy segments, fast sweepers, hills, some decent straights, and everything in between.
Although this ’69 has the double-jointed semi-trailing arm rear suspension, it still oversteers, by the very nature of its rear engine configuration. Not as much as the older swing-axle ones, especially the pre-’67 versions with the narrow original track, but yes, it’s still there. Each briskly taken curve starts with some understeer, meaning it takes a bit of effort to initiate the turn. Then the steering noticeably lightens as the Beetle enters a neutral phase. And that gives way to the sensation that the rear end is becoming increasingly interested in playing a more active role in the dynamics of the moment. Nothing abrupt at all; just a gentle transition to quite mild oversteer.
I drove fairly briskly, taking the curves at 15-20 mph faster than the posted recommended speed. But I was not pushing it hard, for obvious reasons. And the road was still wet in parts, from an earlier shower. The VW always felt totally secure, solid and predictable. And not just in the curves; this particular Beetle felt like it was a youngster, with its legendary solidity on full display. No creaks, groans, floppiness or any other sign of age. It felt like it was almost new, which in a sense it was.
On the straights, I touched 75 a couple of time; that’s still well below its nominal top speed of 82. Given its gearing, 75 equates to a calculated 3787 rpm, so no little insects were harmed, by a long shot. VW engines were designed from the get-go to run flat out all day on the autobahn. What other car designed in 1938 can say that? There even I passed a pickup on a straight.
It felt stable and comfortable at speed, in a 1970-ish way, if not quite in a 21st century way. I used to roll along at that speed all day long in my old VWs, my size 13 foot using the fully depressed little accelerator as a foot rest; the simplest form of cruise control.
The ride is a bit analogue to the steering: it’s not really hard or overly firm, but one does feel even minor changes in the pavement. Part of that is its light weight, a mere 1742 lbs. That was one of the VW’s most advanced aspects back in 1938; thanks to the use of the various “creases” in the body, which were not stylistic affectations but a brand new technology at the time; the large panels could be made out of thinner steel and still be plenty strong.
I didn’t have much use for the brakes, but they felt top-notch. Without power assist, like the steering, there’s more feedback, which makes them very pleasant to use.
What dates the VW the most, outside of its basic body proportions and the lack of power assists, is the noise from its engine. It may have been a bit worse due to the lack of a back seat, but it’s always there, by nature of the engine being air-cooled and with a blower to boot. It was never going to be quiet, and that factor is probably one of the more significant ones to consider in answering the question I posed at the beginning. It’s obviously not ideal for long freeway trips.
But then I rarely use my xB on long trips anymore; it’s mostly short runs around town and up into the mountains for hiking or mushroom hunting. The VW would feel right at home on those gravel forest roads. So I’ve answered the question: yes, an old VW would work for me as a daily driver. It nips and tucks in traffic without any compromises, affords a genuine vintage (no power assists) feel, and most importantly, feels rock solid, even if it is light.
This is all theoretical; I’m not planning to replace my xB with an air cooled Beetle. Like so many other what-if scenarios, it’s one I’ve played out in my head a number of times. Now that I’ve driven this Beetle, I’m more impressed than ever in its ability to still be a viable daily driver.
Related reading:
Automotive History: Who’s The Real Father Of The Volkswagen? PN
CC 1946 Volkswagen: The Beetle Climbs Out Of The Rubble PN
CC 1936 Plymouth: I Can Take It For Spin? PN
I picked up my first Beetle, a ’68, a few years ago. It’s my first classic car and it’s really been an eye opener. The simplicity of its design and ease of maintenance is REALLY appealing compared to modern cars and there’s a part of me that would love trying to daily drive an old VW (be it a bug or preferably a Squareback for its increased practicality). I’m somebody who loves simplicity and thus has little need for the modern amenities in new cars.
Here’s the problem…I live in the rust belt. My bug is a largely original survivor and the idea of subjecting it to 6 months of road salt is unthinkable, given how much old VWs have increased in value. There’s also one other problem…snow tires in the Beetle’s original tire size no longer exist. Reality then kicks in and I shelve the idea of dailying my bug. Might be totally do-able for folks in warmer climates but unfortunately not for me. 🙁
I suspect that Paul’s comment about heavier steering may be down to tire size too. Originally, this VW would have had 155R15 tires, but the ones it is wearing look like they might be 185/70R15s, which will add a bit of heft to the steering.
If the wheel offset is different, that would also contribute.
Originally these came with 5.60 x 15 bias ply tires. Although the 155/80R 15 radial is used often on VWs and has a similar width, its overall diameter (24.8″) is not insignificantly less than the taller 5.60×15 bias ply tire (25.88″). That will affect overall gearing.
I always preferred 165/80R 15s, which have a diameter of 25.4″, still a bit less than the stock tires, but closer. And the extra bit of tread width is beneficial.
We had two “Super” Beetles back when, a 1971, then a ’73. The ’71 was a “Auto Stick” while the ’73 was a 4 speed. We drove those two Bugs all over LA and S. California. They were mostly adequate on the freeways for cruising speed. The mpg was considered good for the time, and I marveled at how comfy/supportive the seats were compared to any American car I had owned!
My wife loved her “personal” Beetles unlike any other vehicle since.
The major complaint I had was the relatively high maint. co$t$ compared to my Chevys. 🙁
I traded the ’73 for a new Pinto after moving back to the Midwest; a major step in the WRONG direction! Live and $ummtimes learn…..DFO
The Supers are way less awful than the regular ones. Longer wheelbase moving the front wheels a few inches forward, modern front suspension, way more trunk room, and the windshield isn’t two inches from your face.
The changed windshield applies only to the 1973-1975 models; the ’71-’72 Supers had the original style windshield.
Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s in New England, Bugs were everywhere. I never had one, but logged a lot of miles behind the wheel. Model years I drove ranged from 1963-1972.
I can’t think of a reason these could not be daily drivers today, except for climate. I never recall being warm on the winter in any Bug, or having the ability to defog the windshield effectively. In warm climates, lack of A/C might be an issue (it wasn’t in NE).
Sure, I never liked their highway driving characteristics, especially in crosswinds or when passing (or being passed) by a semi. And from a safety standpoint, they are very vulnerable vs today’s cars, but the same holds true for most cars of that vintage. But as daily, non-highway drivers in a mild climate… I could live with one.
My parents had a Beetle with AC and you can still get AC systems for them today. Of course it won’t be integrated with the heat/defrost.
People in the NE didn’t use to think they needed AC until they had it and realized that they did. Home AC didn’t exist until the 1950’s, and now houses in the NE that never had it now all have central AC.
An inspired color choice.
I’ve driven one only once, a semi-auto in the 70’s, but road frequently in a friend’s mom’s Type 3 as a kid, which I don’t remember as particularly noisy. Not having an engine or visible hood in front would take a lot of getting used to, like driving a fishbowl bus, but it might make one a safer driver.
As a child, there were many things I disliked about Beetles (that was our family car until I was 10), perhaps the biggest being that, for years, I could not see over the dashboard in the front seat. When we had to get more than 5 people in the car, I’d squeeze into the compartment behind the rear seat, under the window.
Other nits: the noise, the narrow rear seat (legroom was not an issue then, but ‘space’ with my younger brother was, or if we had a 3rd person), and the lack of heat.
I appreciate Beetles a lot more today, and why my father, a generally conservative person, was an ‘early adopter’, buying his first (of FOUR new) Beetle in the 1950s (he broke even or made money on his first three….)
I appreciate them now. 10 years ago, my mechanic let me drive his 1968, the first time I ever drove a Beetle, it was interesting–and fun.
Could a Beetle be a daily driver? If one does not need to drive on freeways in particular, or faster than 55-60 mph in general, yes.
There’s a potential CC Topic: “what’s the oldest car that you are using, or would use, as a daily driver in 2021?”
Assuming the car has to be stock or close to it: 1960 Valiant or 1961 Lancer. Only major modifications I would require would be swapping to a 70s Mopar electronic ignition, a dual-reservoir master cylinder, and probably a set of 15″ wheels (simply for tire availability).
Options would be 170 slant, 3-speed, fast-ratio manual steering, manual 10″ brakes, dealer-installed A/C.
I daily, by choice, a 1974 Chevrolet C10 pickup with a 250 inline 6 and 3 speed manual transmission. Manual steering and brakes. It does have factory front disk brakes, otherwise I’d be tempted to upgrade. (The desperate need for this upgrade -it has no brakes- is why I don’t drive my 1969 Ford F-100 Ranger SWB.)
I did upgrade to an HEI distributor and Weber 2bbl carburetor. I love the truck, and it gets lots of attention (and offers) wherever it goes.
I’m surprised a 74 didn’t have HEI from the factory.
’75 was the first year for HEI as standard equipment; it was optional on some ’74 models.
Well, that explains why my father in law’s 74 has factory HEI…I thought it was standard for 74.
@JohnT.
Please contact me off list about your C10 .
TIA,
-Nate
A serious look at the question. I would say that sure for city driving, no problem. But highway use could present a problem since the Beetle is so slow, it would impede most other vehicles to the point that it could cause life threatening accidents as impatient motorists try to go around the slug of this impediment. I know this very well as I drive 40 year old cars with fuel injected 6 cylinder power, (that to me is very adequate), but to the other motorists, still not fast enough.
It’s been a bit over twenty years ago, but I dailied my ’64 with its stock 1200 and 6V electrics in Atlanta, GA traffic for six years. It’s quite doable, as long as you’re willing to live without modern features. For me, the driving engagement and experience far more than made up for the lack of safety equipment (I added three-point seat belts right after I bought the car) or creature comforts (maybe with exception of sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic in August with no air conditioning).
The car also did well (mostly) on a trip from Atlanta to Oshkosh, WI for the big airshow. We really only felt the lack of power climbing the foothills around Chattanooga, TN.
My perpetual project Beetles will both get dual-circuit brakes, camber compensators, sway-away bars and three-point seat belts when I finally get them finished. Those will be my only concessions to modernity.
I would think a ’38 Buick, Packard or Chrysler would pass as a daily driver today. Moving up to 1940, even a Plymouth would probably qualify.
I beg to differ. If your driving is strictly rural or you live in a hamlet, then yes. Try driving one of those regularly in today’s city traffic, and park it a few times. They’re ponderous, and willowy too. Slow, heavy steering. Mediocre brakes. Wallowing handling. Very poor visibility. Way too many compromises.
But a nice choice for a leisurely drive on a Sunday.
I’ve wanted a Bug since I was a kid and they were still relatively new old cars. Now, of course, 40-something years later they’re basically made of Unobtanium, especially in the Midwest. But the main reason I haven’t tried harder to finally bite the bullet and get one is crashworthiness. Sure, even when new the VW was the junior-sized vehicle on the American road. But, these days when cars have 18 airbags, 300hp, and a driver who is probably more interested in Instagram than whatever’s in the windshield, it’s just a calculus I’m not interested in.
A nice article .
Apart from the salt/rust issues, there is also the highway speed ~ in TEXAS folks tend to drive 80 + MPH all the time on the open highway and rear end collisions with slower vehicles are common .
For in town use there’s no way a stock Beetle won’t keep up, they’re not any slower than everyone else, only those few who need to blast past every other car and drive 60 MPH in the neighborhood or who fail to maintain it will notice .
This looks like a fine car, the front tires would greatly improve the steering effort with the correct 155R15 size, I just found these at tirerack.com thanx to a comment by another unrelated CC commenter .
IMO the single port engines are the best ones, they last the longest .
Nice to see a young person who appreciates the Beetle for what it is, too many Hot Rod / lower them and then claim they’re not good drivers _DUH_ .
-Nate
Interesting, I’d like to drive that and compare to my 1963 1200. I daily drove my VW for a few weeks at one point, and it worked reasonably well as long as I took the minor roads to work. And ignored the entitled ladies in giant white SUVs who honk at me for being slow.
Crawling along the expressway at 100km/hr while traffic zinged past on all sides felt seriously unsafe, and gave me lots of time to think “man, I wouldn’t want to hit anything in this!”
So yes, it could work but you’d need a modern vehicle as backup. Parts in Canada are an issue too, I can get anything I need but the wait is 1-2 weeks for shipping.
A 1500/1600 is undoubtedly somewhat quicker and faster and better suited to modern speeds. But I drove my stock 1200 in heavy traffic and freeways back then too (pre-55 mph speed limit). On a level highway, 72 mph (116 kmh) is the top (and cruising speed). Are you sure your throttle cable is adjusted right? Or are you just reluctant to drive it wide open?
As a kid, I wanted to go fast! Lol
I figured Beetles were slow–the speedo in our family 1968 only read to 140 kph, whereas most cars had 160 or 180, several 200.
So when I was in the car, 80 kph was pretty good. In Greece in the early 1970s, there were no freeways (relatively long, straight DIVIDED highways), so on long straights on rural roads, we might hit….90– woo-hoo!
As mentioned, given ones needs and geographic location, a beetle could be
an excellent daily. Regarding safety, driving old cars as if you were on a motorcycle is
helpful, i.e. total awareness all the time, making no assumptions about other drivers
intentions, etc. I don’t even listen to, or have a functional radio in mine. Of course
this is the safest way to operate any vehicle.
I have two reasons why a car this old (forty-some years in the example, not 85 years in the basic design) is unfit for being a DD, and those are safety and pollution. Not the fault of the Beetle, but instead the state of the art in the 1960’s.
Newer cars emit something in the neighborhood of 95% less toxic emissions of the old ones. I had the experience of following a new car on a lonely road yesterday, at a leisurely pace. Everyone had his windows down, it was that kind of a day. What did I smell? Cigarette smoke from the driver. That’s how clean new cars are.
As to safety, it is now not simply the addition of seat belts, air bags, or collapsible steering columns. Safety is a feature engineered into the entire car, and in the manner in which it absorbs energy, while not transmitting it to the occupants, and at the same time maintaining the integrity of the passenger spaces. Which has an interesting side effect of making people feel very safe, and so they sometimes neglect to take seriously their driving habits. Oh, well, the accident is just a nuisance and an insurance claim. Often not so for the driver of an older car.
None of this is the fault of this Beetle. The knowledge and technology to make cars so clean and safe simply didn’t exist at the time. I love my old cars. But I would never recommend one for a family member as a DD. There are some bad things you can’t do anything about. But I don’t want to have any hand in setting up another person with a car that is significantly more dangerous and dirty than what is now commonly available. We have a responsibility to look out for each other, and those of us who understand more about cars than the average person need to use that knowledge for good. OK, rant over, I’ll get oof of my soapbox now.
As far as emission’s are concerned, antique cars like the Beetle or over 40 years old only consist of .001 percent of the vehicle fleet, thus rendering any extreme emissions from said older vehicle to virtually zero. The safety aspect is valid, but we can understand that anyone driving older vehicles is a car guy or gal and more aware of the technical aspect and drives with safety in mind.
On a planetwide basis, you’re right that one old car is trivial. But that’s the wrong frame of reference unless the goal is to come up with a way to make believe something bad and damaging is just fine.
The toxic crap that comes out an old car’s tailpipe is local, gassing the people around the car even if it’s the only 1969 (or whatever) model left in the world.
You probably wouldn’t accept your local water authority saying “Yes, there’s raw sewage and lead and arsenic in your drinking water, but your drinking water consists of only .001 percent of the total amount of water on the planet, thus rendering the pollution to virtually zero”. It’s a bogus argument when we’re talking about car exhaust, too.
That’s not quite a fair comparison. Air quality is profoundly affected by the specific amounts of pollutants as well as atmospheric and geographical conditions. The smog in LA, which is what triggered emission controls, is the result of a photochemical reaction as well as geographic ones, which favor inversions.
There are of course now well-established standards for air quality. Which is precisely why certain areas need regular emission control tests to help meet them,and others don’t. If you live in a smaller metro area that gets a fair a mount of wind and is not prone to inversion, the air typically well exceeds the standards.
There is a reason why old vehicles are exempt, because statistically, what they add in smog-forming emissions are simply vastly too small to matter, statistically. There’s still many other sources of them that are much more significant, and still need to be regulated in areas where they contribute to poor air quality.
Drinking water standards are well defined too. The difference is that minute amounts of smog-forming pollutants can be quickly dispersed (unless the conditions don’t allow it), whereas drinking water pollutants aren’t. They’re 100% trapped.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not anti-emission controls; far from it. But they need to be taken in the context of the actual amounts as well as local atmospheric/geographic conditions.
I don’t disagree with you; I think we’re both right. One 1969 Beetle driven every day in Denver isn’t going to measurably affect the air quality in Denver. But it will make life significantly more miserable for those drivers behind it in traffic, those pedestrians standing on the corner at the same red light where it’s idling (or walking through the parkade where it’s running), etc.
A group of comments has me realizing that there are virtually no antique cars that can spew pollutants out on the same scale as a late model diesel truck that’s been chipped and modified.
With logic like that, you must be in favor of a nation wide ban on any older vehicle to operate on the roads. Thought you were a car guy. But I can realistically expect radical environmental extremists to propose this eventually. I’ve noticed in my travels, that my 40 year old car is the oldest one I see everyday, and even though it doesn’t pollute to excess, the fact that I’m the only one, if my car did pollute to excess, it couldn’t possibly add one trillionth of 1% of pollution to the atmosphere.
I do alright with my own words, thanks, Duane; I won’t need these you tried to put in my mouth. So…here, you can have ’em back. »spit« 😉
My issue is not with the car person who understands and accepts the risks of driving an older car. My concern is when family members, especially younger ones, are set up with a very old car as a DD and may have no real understanding of the risks they take.
As to pollution, the essence of cleaning up the planet is doing what we can, when we can. I am all in favor of keeping the old tin on the roads, but I would try to discourage people I know and interact with, from driving very old cars as DDs, due to the pollution. There are also aftermarket parts and assemblies available to minimize the bad stuff (does GM still sell the EROS complete engines, which are very clean and are designed to drop-in on the older cars?).
↑↑↑↑↑ This. (No thumbs up function here, unfortunately.)
Those Beetles did roll pretty well without much damage though, which was a good thing because particularly the swing axle ones were rather prone to doing that.
Here’s your thumbs-up, Michael. Copy and paste as required!
The emissions aspect is interesting, and I have expressed my thoughts on
older vehicles on CC a few times. I am more concerned with modified/poorly
maintained modern vehicles that spew pollutants than a handful of properly serviced
vintage cars. I do think there should be emissions testing for all internal combustion
transportation, with the standards, of course, lower for vintage vehicles, but
banning modifications that increase pollution.
Having been behind numerous late model old trucks and sports cars that are
spitting out clouds of smoke and unburned fuel due to “performance” alterations
and are most likely operated much more frequently than most older vehicles,
that seems the easiest low hanging fruit to snag.
late model trucks that is, not old.
I can tell you first hand there have been crackdowns on aftermarket tuning companies in the last few years due primarily to those idiots with diesels that roll coal. I have an aftermarket tune in my Cougar using software from one of these companies and the crackdown effected my access to the software I paid a good amount of money for, and was required to take an online course to restore my privileges, and every single part of it had to do with diesel operation, tuning and emissions systems primarily pertaining to diesel – not Gasoline, for which is my only use for the software. The factory tune in many gasoline cars, especially ones as old as mine runs substantially richer than necessary at wide open throttle that is bad for both performance and emissions, there is no drawback to my fun or the environment in correcting that in an aftermarket tune using a wideband, same goes for a well tuned carburator.
I do think emissions testing at the tailpipe level is a good idea, however the draconian crackdowns on any alterations period, particularly the on the visual level some states choose to ridicule is absurd. California recently effectively banned aftermarket tunes by ridiculing the checksum in the PCM, the car could pass the actual sniffer on their dyno with flying colors, but nope. Return it to stock or else!
Fortunately, it’s much easier with older vehicles. My Cadillac de Ville passes an IM-240 emission test easily…to all appearances, it’s a stock Cad 425 with dual exhaust, and I have put lots of effort into that appearance. It’s not…it’s actually a 542ci stroker making about 500hp. It wouldn’t pass the Cali visual test now, but if I changed the exhaust, I suspect it would sail through with none of the test people even suspecting it was a hot rod.
Friend’s Dodge Aspen wagon is similar…it looks like a stock Lean Burn 318, down to the maze of vacuum lines and catalytic converters…but it’s actually a 408 Magnum stroker. It starts, runs, and drives just like it did stock, except for having about triple the power.
I vehemently disagree with this take. That is not my social responsibility as a car enthusiast, I don’t believe it is a social responsibility period. As an enthusiast I learned what the realities of daily driving a old car entail and consequently I chose not to pursue driving something quite this old on a daily basis even though I am more inclined to put up with their quirks and problems and lack of safety. I can rest pretty assured it won’t take someone less enthusiastic to realize they’re in over their heads when something as minor as cold no-starts makes them perpetually late for work, or smelling like exhaust and various solvents.
If there is any responsibility I harbor as an enthusiast it is specifically to not discourage car enthusiasm. If somebody I know wants to buy an old car and wants my advice I’ll give my real constructive advice, and that is to make sure they don’t get scammed or buy a money pit that will unfairly ruin old cars for them. I won’t sugarcoat the realities and would discourage DD use primarily for the sake of the car’s well-being, not just theirs, but in the end it is their CHOICE and their lesson to learn if it doesn’t work out.
Same lesson we all learned, I wasn’t born a car enthusiast. By the time I got my drivers license and started looking for cars I personally met nothing but resistance from people including family when I was pretty actively on a search for a V8 RWD American Coupe or bust – “it’s impractical”, “it’s inefficient”, “it’s dangerous”, “it’s unreliable” is all I heard – you know what all that discouragement did? Made me buy one to rub it in their faces.
PS I happened to follow a 61 Impala bubbletop home for 10 miles on a surprisingly beautiful fall day, I would take the odors emitted by that beauty over the cigarettes, vapes, perfumes and colognes I otherwise smell all day anyday.
@Matt & other nay sayers .
VW Beetles are fairly notorious polluters on trailing throttle but not under load nor at idle unless something is wrong .
I used to do pre smog test adjusting on Air Cooled VW’s and they were pretty clean all things considered .
Most had open crank case ventilation, it’s a simple thing to convert that .
If you’re following a 1961 anything and can smell it’s exhaust, there’s something wrong with or out of adjustment on that vehicle .
I’m in the Los Angeles basin and daily I see some modern hoopty ride belching clouds of dense smoke apparently I’m the only person who cares .
I have three old Diesel and only one emits visible smoke ever, I hate this and so don’t drive it anymore , I don’t have the nearly $5,000.00 to take it’s engine apart yet again and find out how I was cheated the last time .
Being a responsible citizen doesn’t mean suffering ~ I’m sure you don’t dump used oil anywhere or throw trash out the window as you drive ? .
Some folks choose to drive 40 + year old vehicles, others ride bicycles, none are bad unless they’re willfully bad, just different .
-Nate
Was there a wheel style similar/same to the ones on this car available as an option made my Mahle if my memory serves or were those aftermarket only as well? They work very well with the car.
This looks quite nicely done, every few years I give about a week’s thought to finding a Bug and having some fun with it, and then the idea recedes (or sinks) among all of the other ideas and realities I have…And thanks for the driving impression sans rose-tints, seems like the Bug still holds up well, at least for intown or slightly to moderately longer distances.
I’m left with the thought of what 1969-built vehicle would NOT be acceptable in today’s world should it be similarly cared for, they probably almost all would work with similar concessions to mod-cons. To be fair while intrinsically a great design, a 1969 Beetle with likely a bigger motor than stock would seem to end up a far cry from the 1938 design and power level, most other similarities notwithstanding, and absolutely benefits from the continuous improvements made over the the timespan between. Cool car and very interesting piece, thanks!
They’re apparently knock-offs of the Fuchs 4 bolt wheels which were optional on the 4-cylinder Porsche 914. I assume the Fuchs was the original. A number of companies have made very similar or somewhat similar wheels since, including Empi.
I don’t think any alloys came on Beetles from the factory ever, but I assume a number of dealers added them.
Here’s the original Fuchs wheel. I’ve always liked them; one of my favorites.
I’m left with the thought of what 1969-built vehicle would NOT be acceptable in today’s world should it be similarly cared for, they probably almost all would work with similar concessions to mod-cons. To be fair while intrinsically a great design, a 1969 Beetle with likely a bigger motor than stock would seem to end up a far cry from the 1938 design and power level, most other similarities notwithstanding, and absolutely benefits from the continuous improvements made over the the timespan between.
I get your point, but my point is what other 1969-built vehicle was designed in 1938? If you drop a bigger engine into a 1938 Pontiac, and give it better brakes, it’s still going to show the profound limitations of its willowy frame, mediocre suspension, stiff and sloppy steering, etc.
There’s no way to make a typical ’38 car feel anywhere nearly as modern as a VW without a full chassis transplant. This is why resto-mods (drop old bodies onto newer frames and chassis) are so popular; folks don’t like the feel of 1938 chassis even with a big engine under the hood. Maybe even less so.
That’s never done with a VW; no need to. It’s a tight structure with good bones that have held up remarkably well for 85 years. You could easily swap in a 1600 engine, syncro transmission, and newer brakes, wheels and tires into a ’38 VW, and it would drive very similar to the ’69. That’s essentially my point.
The reason people do chassis swaps is frequently for things like practicality (makes engine swaps easier), cost, and part availability (many vintage car parts are very expensive pieces of unobtanium). I saw one…a 1949 Rocket 88 on a 1971 or 72 Cutlass frame. The reason was simple: the stock 1949 frame was totally rotted (could be crushed with a bare hand), all the mechanicals (engine, trans, axle, front suspension) were gone. The Rocket was essentially a body and partial interior.
The Cutlass, while kind of ratty, was mechanically good aside from a leaking transmission. (It was bought to provide a front clip and floorpans for restoring a Hurst-Olds.) There was no other realistic way to save that Rocket.
It’s not the primary reason. Check out all the shops offering new frames, improved suspensions (front and rear), steering sets, brakes, etc. for popular classic cars. It’s to make them feel safe, comfortable, and familiar to drivers. You cannot make the typical 1938 car feel and drive that way with its original chassis.
Many/ Most drivers today would feel very insecure driving an older vintage car with its original chassis at today’s speeds and traffic.
Actually Paul I disagree with your assessment of the 1938 Pontiac “Willowy Frame. The frame is a full ladder frame with a X member in the middle. The body itself is so stiff, that by the time the frame is attached, it’s really a stiff structure. The weak area’s are as you said the obsolete steering and suspension design.
I have driven some late 1930s cars. Sorry; their overall structure (body and frame) were far from being a “stiff structure”.
Structural stiffness, which is a critical element to allow a suspension to function properly, has been one the most significant improvements in cars over the decades.
If you were to drive a ’38 Pontiac and a VW Beetle of the same section of rough, twisty road at the same speed, you’d know what I was talking about. The stiff unitized structure with fully independent suspension of the VW was vastly superior.
Unless you have intimate experience with both, one is not in a position to appreciate the huge difference.
How about a 49-51 Ford?
I’ve never driven one, but good chance you have.
There was one in my neighborhood for many years a few blocks away, but I was never able to run into him to talk about. At a car show 15 years ago, I met a GM engineer with a 1950 Ford and he said he drove it “year round” (NOT every day, but 1/2x a month)
How about a 49-51 Ford?
Try driving any stock pre-1970 or so full size American car without power steering around town or on a rough stretch of country road. And park it a few times. Especially the latter. Not only is the steering heavy at low speed, it’s got too much slop at high speed.
The VW’s steering feels light as a feather and tight like a sports car’s in comparison. It handles much better, and feels more of one piece.
I drive my ’66 F100 often enough to know what it’s like. It makes the VW feel like a modern sports car in comparison.
Also, after I posted, I realized, 1949-51 is AFTER 1930s……. my bad.
I see your point about the slow, heavy manual steering–though today, compared to 1950, there is much less parallel parking. But throw in high effort, mediocre brakes with lots of fade (stop and go, 0-45-0 rush hour on I-75/95/295, etc) , hard to shift manual trannies, and that takes care of everything before 1960. (but all those factors meant my parents’ generation were innately better drivers, because they had to deal with all that)
I have an unassisted Mk2 GTI, and it takes some muscle to park in tight spaces–but between above 5 mph, it’s great!
I was very surprised (pleasantly) with two cars I test drove in the last five years–with unassisted steering AND brakes and 3-speed manual, the only two I’ve ever driven like that (but were common in 50s and even 60s)
A 66 Mustang, where I thought the steering was lighter AND faster than I expected (at the time I didn’t have an unassisted car). It was the brakes on that car that were awful–a lot of effort, not a lot of slowing down… The six-cylinder had a lot more go than I remember my mom’s Fairmont did, effortless 70-75 cruiser.
…and you may or may not like this, but a 68 Chevy pickup, 250. The steering was slow and heavy, but neither was as bad as I expected. Brakes took some effort, but they stopped truck well, column shift was good…. the one that got away..
Perhaps because I came of age in the 70s and started driving in the 1980s, I can think of some late 1950s thru late 60s designs I would daily drive today, but NOTHING before that–except the Beetle (avoiding freeways)
Unless one needs to have 70mph or more, by the late 1970s, even malaise-era cars with 1960s origins are viable daily drivers IMO
You caught me, I had a daily driver 1938 Pontiac for a while, so I’ve very familiar with that model. It was the 6 cylinder, business coupe. The speedometer said “Safety First” right in the center. I also rode in a VW Beetle during a car pool. The 38 Pontiac was 100 times more comfortable of a car to ride in and had a real heater! Of course the bug could handle better, but the comfort of the passengers is a prime factor of a value of a automobile.
What you value in a DD is undoubtedly different than what I value. We’ll just have to leave it at that.
During my experience with the car pool VW bug, I found the seats to be rock hard, sitting in the rear seat agonizing for lack of room, the ride was bone jarring, and the heater failed to deliver. Another vehicle I found the most uncomfortable was a 1960’s Bronco,after a 100 mile journey in that, I swore never again!
Yes, I was realizing the nit I was picking was all in the interpretation. And no, of the pre-1940’s designs (and plenty post 1940) there are unlikely to be many if any that could still do this. I was more meandering off on the path of a 1969 model year vehicle in general being viable today and while in some ways none are (safety, emissions, perhaps comfort and convenience), plenty of aspects still function just fine (the actual driving aspect, at least in good weather).
I learned to drive a stick in a 1968 bug, which I drove to high school sometimes when I was 16 or 17, Except for the lack of A/C, it was a pleasant car to drive. It seemed to have decent torque off the line (this was the height of the malaise era mind you so everything else I compared it to was slow too). The outward visibility was good, the rear seat usable, and there was a nice feel from the manual steering and brakes. There was a very “analog” feel to it – everything was simple and mechanical with none of the electronics or electrical or hydraulic assists controlling everything as with modern cars even then. The ’68 looked alot like the car here except that a few vestiges of the early-’60s dashboard were still in place, with some areas exterior body paint color. It had the retro-looking speedometer similar to the one Ed Stembridge posted above, but with the fuel gauge inside it rather than to the right. Good car.
1. A colleague’s wife wanted one for her daily non-winter needs very badly They are in their 30s and she loves a red convertible 69 she found. Of course, living in Maine has it’s advantages when it comes to traffic or lack of it. Although he rides a moped to work and managed to get hit by a driver making an illegal U-turn.
2. The fellow, whose Squareback I wrote up, was seen in my office recently. He has improved a few things on his car and now drives it much more regularly than before. His wife and daughters still hate the noisy, smelly car. He tells me he is looking for a replacement steering column.
3. Sounds like your F-100 needs a new steering box.
I’d guess the environment one lives in will determine the viability of the vehicle chosen to do the task, at least many decades ago it was. My only beetle was a ’56 with a roll-back roof, & that was back when I was touring Germany courtesy of Uncle Sam in the mid ’60s.This car was one that was bought/sold a number of times yearly as we GIs rotated to, & from duty assignments. I had mine about 8 months until I lusted for more autobahn speed, & bought a Fiat 850 coupe. And while the bug was certainly primitive compared to the ’59 Olds I left behind stateside, I began to appreciate the values of amazing gas mileage, could be parked in under 3 minutes of wheel turning & something that would go up a hill in deepish snow. I found that the motor pool guys could change out an engine faster than a spark plug change in a V8. I’d also suppose that being mostly dressed in the Army attire of boots, heavy fatigues, & parkas made the miserable north/central Deutch winters bearable with the infamous one candle power heater, & summer was a two week span of 80 degree days, so air conditioning was the luxury assigned to high ranking officers with “imported” American luxury cars. But, would I want it to prowl around town today? Oh, maybe in April, or October, & it would be easy to spot in a Walmart parking lot, but I think I’ll stick with my 20 year old Miata.
Nice car and good write up. My first beetle, 1974 big window, went well with twin port heads etc. The next was a 64 1300 in mustard of course that was a delight to drive. Then a 66 fastback 6v which was ok but had the usual holes in the heater transfer boxes leading to engine fumes into the car. The engines give up reving at 3500 because the cooling fan pulls the engine power exponentially and little is left for acceleration thereafter. I removed the fan on the 66 and replaced with 2 electric fans and changed to 12 volt. Went well. Eventually rust caught up so I changed to a GRP monocoque losing 400kg. Now these 60s models are worth $20 to $40k in Oz…. In my day they sold second hand for less than a $1k.
What a cool car—I dig the purple paint!
I hope Katie doesn’t drive much at night; whoever put in those pretend-headlites did her a disservice. Same goes for the pretend-air filter, though that’s an engine-durability thing rather than a life-safety thing.
“And third makes a very versatile gear for around town.”
It is interesting how VW values have remained the same over the years. The same thing can be said about my Golf: third gear is good for anything from 30 km/h to 130 km/h. The seating position is high. The car scoots to 100 km/h and then slows down. The motor is tractable and economical. Finally, I tend to keep both hands on the wheel as the road feel is superb. The Beetle was designed to be a car for a working person to afford and the Golf has the same mission. Good thing I scooped up a Golf SportWagen EA888 when I could in 2018. On Sept 22, 2022, it’s getting a performance upgrade. An extra 40 hp and 70 ft/lb of torque for C$800.00.
I learned to drive a stick using a Beetle that belonged to a friend’s father (I’m not entirely sure my friend had Dad’s permission for me to drive the car, but in any event it was returned undamaged). With some coaching from my friend I soon got the hang of this shifting thing, and the lessons came in handy 8 years later when I bought my first stick-shift Mustang and had to get home in rush-hour traffic.
Hmmm… Any car designed in 1938 (or earlier) other than a beetle? Well, there’s Citroen’s Traction Avant, and I think I could live with any 30s V8 Ford (particularly the lighter body styles). There would be one or two sensible modifications but then a later Beetle is hardly like the original which, with its 25 hp, would NOT be much fun on today’s roads.
Oh, money no object: a Derby Bentley 4 1/4 with the overdrive box. Not as huge and heavy-handed as the American equivalents, dead reliable if done and maintained right, cruises at 75 MPH all day long, has very good brake drums, goes round corners, etc.
This article reminds me of that famous Car and Driver comparison of the following 1971 small cars cars (in final ranking): Vega, Simca 1204, Corolla, Pinto, Beetle, Gremlin.
What’s fascinating is that, if longevity had been the primary criteria, the Beetle would have handily won in that group (with the sole exception being the Corolla, but only in a 3-season state with zero road salt) and the Vega would have ‘easily’ came in dead last. Seems like those things rarely went over 10,000 miles from new before their owners gave up on them.
Then there’s that guy who drove a 1966 Volvo P1800 for over 3.2 million miles before he died in 2018. The takeaway from that one was the most important thing for a long-life car were to get the one with the absolute best seats possible.
With that said, with all of the auto improvements over the years, one of those that would seem to contribute the most to high miles might be the switch from carburetors to EFI. I don’t know much about VW’s Solex carb, but if there was a way to convert the classic VW boxer engine to some sort of reliable EFI, it would go a long way to making an old Beetle a viable daily-driver, seemingly forever.
if there was a way to convert the classic VW boxer engine to some sort of reliable EFI, it would go a long way to making an old Beetle a viable daily-driver, seemingly forever.
All 1975-1977 VW Beetles sold in the US came with FI.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1977-vw-beetle-the-fuel-injected-end-of-the-road-for-the-beetle/
How were those final EFI Beetles for maintenance and reliability? The Malaise Era wasn’t exactly a high point for any kind of new fuel systems designed primarily for emissions. That would be the only qualm. Well, that, and the big ECU that took up a bunch of space in the behind rear seat storage area.
It was the D-Jetronic system, which given decent service would cause no trouble for at least a decade, usually twice that. The ones I saw come in my family’s shop invariably suffered from bad air filters, which killed the bellows air flow sensor.
Another problem in this era was how often people ran out of gas, which destroys electric fuel pumps. This was the reason for 80% of the failures I ever saw with both D and K-Jetronic.
Well no ;
Beetles only ever had K-jet, typ III’s , IV’s and some Typ II’s used the D-jet, D-jet was a crude MAP controlled system and K-Jet had the delicate air box .
Both were good systems if left alone and regularly and properly serviced , after ten years someone was sure to fiddle with it when it didn’t need fiddling and that’s when us VW Mechanics got to sort them out .
-Nate
That is interesting. The Wiki article and this page both state the US-market late-production Beetles got L-Jetronic.
As good or better than the carbureted Beetles. VW had seven years of fuel injection experience on air cooled engines by the time the ’75 Beetles came out.
THANK YOU Daniel ! yet again I’m mistaken, the Beetles got the AFC L-Jetronic, not the K .
I still vaguely remember a few tuning tricks that made these run better, more powerfully and yet still breezed through the annual smog tests ~ this L-Jetronic F.I. system was, IMO better than the crude D-Jetronic .
-Nate
Drove a ’62 Comet & a ’72 Mercedes 250 as daily drivers until 1998. Made out OK then, but wouldn’t do it now. I love driving old cars under the right circumstances, but old cars do not made good DDs because:
1) They’ll rust if you drive them in the winter road salt.
2) Modern cars always start instantly, run smoothly, and don’t overheat. Better gas mileage.
3) I need A/C in the summer. Good heat in the winter.
4) Modern cars = good handling, brakes, safety, smoothness, silence, power assists–stiffer bodies, better sealing around doors, windows, trunks. Drive an old car then drive a new one. Especially on interstates.
5) Modern cars have clear coat finishes which are easier to keep shiny.
6) Relying on decades-old parts and machinery when you need a car to depend on isn’t smart.
7) People behind you will probably smell your car, even if it’s in perfect tune.
8) Old cars attract a LOT of attention, and sometimes I don’t want that.
9) Old cars I drive for enjoyment, and there’s no enjoyment if I have to go somewhere hectic.
That’s why I like my 2005 Jaguar S-Type. I get classic looks with modern technology (but not TOO MUCH technology!)
Oldest car I would possibly DD? Maaaaybe a really well-preserved ’80s Lincoln Town Car, but that won’t be nimble or sporty.
The oldest car I see on the road with some frequency that people may be using as DDs is the c. 75-85 Mercedes SL. Another possible choice.
So to answer your question, “No. Unless you’re a ‘pry the 30s-70s steering wheel out of my cold dead hand’ type of committed enthusiast who believes ‘Old car or no car!’ “
> what other 1969-built vehicle was designed in 1938?
Jeep CJ comes close – in production by 1941, still in production with same basic design in 1986 and was a daily driver for many.
Oh man, so much here.
Steering. I was into bugs once upon a time and I swear some felt light and others made you work. I have no idea why.
Power/speed. With my 40 horse ’64, it would top out at 75-80 indicated, depending on the day, some days it was just faster than others. With a later 1600 I never maxed out the speedo, but felt I could have hit 90 with enough road. Keeping up with traffic wasn’t really a problem and even today would really only be problematic on the interstates with 75-80 speed limits, with hills and elevation, the beetles didn’t take to 6,000 feet kindly.
Handling. I never even noticed any initial understeer, to me they always wanted to hang the back end out, but that was ok with me, it was predicable and never seemed to get in over my head.
Traction. On even somewhat level ground the only place I ever got stuck was in deep sand. I’d been told it was ok to cross, but it wasn’t. The guys that pulled me out were shocked I got as far as I did! Too steep and snow would stop me, but that was about it.
I’d love to drive one again. Just for an hour. Just to see what it was like back then. Daily? Sure, I could. They were reliable enough but I’d want electronic ignition, a 12 volt system and maybe even an alternator instead of the old generator. Would I want to. No, not really.
Oldest that could be dailied. Hmmm. I think by the mid 60s many American cars could be. My now long gone ’69 BMW 2800/Bavaria, with FI and electronic ignition (the condition it was in when it was rear ended) would be perfectly capable of covering many, many miles without issue. But get back into the 50’s and I don’t really think they’d be up for it, on a reliable sense.
I do daily an air cooled VW (my ’71 Ghia) – it is my only car here and I have just returned from running some errands and a bit of mountain biking. It just does all the things a car needs to do. It keeps up with traffic and will see 85mph (measured by GPS) surprisingly easily – low frontal area and decent aero. It doesn’t depreciate, I can get parts and do most maintenance stuff myself, meaning running costs are low. The thing is also a real icebreaker – never had a car that got so many positive comments.
Mine has about 108,00 miles and is still on its original engine and trans, and uses very little oil. I’ve added an alternator and am going to upgrade the headlamps (will source them from the excellent Mr. Stern) and I installed a narrowed adjustable front suspension and 5 lug brakes to fit 17″ Fuchs (OK, it’s my car and I love those wheels).
I enjoy driving this old car – it has an unique feel that comes from the way it was engineered and that you either love or hate. Getting the most out of its 48 horses requires that you actually concentrate and pay attention.
As to pollution: manufacturing a new car is a bigger hit on the environment than keeping an old one running (and I rely on designing new vehicles for my income). Daniel has a good point though – the pollution from my old heap is local and you certainly do notice the tailpipe smell of an old car.
My previous vehicle was a very nice EV – swift, silent, great handling. I bought the Ghia thinking I would use it as a fun vehicle. I just never got around to getting another “sensible” car, so the little old VeeDub became the daily.
Yes, safety is not any where near modern standards and I don’t do a long commute, but these old VWs can definitely serve as only cars, just as they did back in the day.
Mind you, I used to daily a ’66 427 Corvette whilst living in Paris, so perhaps I’m a bit strange…
It’s probably not. ←that’s a link
I’ve read so many different takes on the old car vs new (fuel efficient) car environmental arguments.
I don’t have a definite opinion on it, but I would say I have been struck how much of the pro new car data seems to come from… car manufacturers.
Interesting article!
VW and many others are offering kits to convert to electric and I have seriously considered that…
Careful.
The hungry truck is eyeing what it thinks is a big tasty green jellybean.
That made me laugh!!
That made me laugh!!
The Ghias may (or may not) have been slower off the line, but aerodynamics definitely gave them better high speed/top speed performance. A 40 HP Bug couldn’t keep up with a 36 horse Ghia on the highway, all aerodynamics.
Going in the other direction, I was driving a 36HP bus at work one time and couldn’t keep up with a rapid transit bus on an uphill city street off a red light. Uphill, but not a mountain. Particularly now they are beloved, but especially with the lower powered engines they weren’t slow, they were really slow. In spite of sharing so much, Bugs and Busses were vastly different animals both in performance and reliability.
That’s true I think – the Ghia is appreciably heavier than the Bug, but I am constantly surprised at just how easily mine (with 48DIN hp) will get to 70 and above and how little throttle it needs to hold speed – aero is definitely better and the frontal area is lower than a Bug’s, so CdxA is much reduced, although I have never seen figures for the Ghia…
I’d say that there is a fair bit of difference between a pre-war bug vs a 1969 model. I once got to drive a 1949 cabriolet, and to my surprise, it still had cable and rod brakes! Once the engine was up to 1200-1300 CC, hydraulic brakes were fitted, and the front steering was improved with the roll bar and dampener, did the Beetle really become drivable in America.
I’d also dare say that a 1940 or 41 Cadillac, Buick, or Packard small or intermediate sized vehicle would be fine for daily driving as long as you don’t have a long freeway grind. I know someone who dailies a 1961 Dodge truck with the leaning tower of power and manual brakes and steering year round in Northeast Wisconsin. As long as he stays off the roads that are above 55 MPH, he is fine, even in city stop and go traffic.
To answer the question properly, you would need to drive a 1938 VW: I suspect it would be much closer in awkwardness to the 1936 Plymouth. No syncromesh, non-hydraulic brakes, 0-60 in over 35 secs, practically half the power of the ’69, bicycle cross-ply tyres and, yes, swing axles. It would be exhausting, not to say suicidal, to use it daily.
I don’t disagree for one second that the ’38 design was advanced in suspension, semi-monocoque, alloy engine and aero. But the reasons why the car continued on so long were really not so much to do with those. The intervention of the war itself adds 7 years. There was a need for cheap transport in a continent longing for it post-war, there was excellent quality of build and concommitant better reliability than any other tiddler (and yes, that low-rev design), the various other societal/economic factors that caused the US explosion all combined to stretch its life to improbable length (though it really died in the mid-’70’s for the West). There is, in the story of the long life, also quite a lot of luck in amongst those factors (such as the role of Major Hirst in giving VW the kiss of life instead of last rites). Apart from anything else, it seems wholly improbable that a car “designed” by the leader of a losing military and genocidal murderer to boot could EVER be popular with anyone – let alone ’60’s peaceniks!
The ’69 here is not the ’38 design in all the daily-driving things that matter. A ’69 Corolla could also be dailied, and perhaps easier. Still, an interesting exercise nonetheless, in what seems like quite a sweet Beetle.
I’m with the crowd above who could not contemplate dailying a Beetle because of the safety issue in amongst today’s cars. There really are too many distracted airbag-ensconced nuts behind the other wheels, no matter how safe I tried to drive. I do miss the wonderful analogue steering of old, though, even that of a Beetle, which was never wondrous unless very new.
My 1938 choice would have a full monocoque, syncromesh, an all-alloy 1300cc four with OHC, hydraulic aluminium ribbed drums, 85 mph top speed and a trailing-arm/multilink independent rear end – a Lancia Aprillia. (I know, it was theoretically several multiples of the VW in price, but you know what I mean).
@Justy and others, you readily admit you have no experience driving a 1940’s VW Beetle with mechanical (cable operated) brakes yet you think you can judge .
I have no idea where you can go to test drive one anymore but they’re O.K. if crude, I’d not drive one on the freeway and yes, they’d easily go 60 + mph all day long .
IIRC the 1951 DeLuxe Export Beetle was the introduction of hydraulic brakes, is should have been to all chassis .
-Nate
I originally wasn’t going to comment on this one, and what I *do* have is only tangentially related to the 1969 VW in this post… I just got home from the gas station in my daily driven 1986 Chevy truck, and an older gentleman walked up and started admiring it, and smiling. He asked a few questions and remarked that he hasn’t seen one in the condition mine is in for many years. Said it really made his night to see that someone actually took care of a vehicle that was usually used hard and thrown away. Now, I do get thumbs up and quick compliments in passing from time to time, but only occasionally does someone light up like this guy did.
The above is another nut in the basket that favors using an older vehicle as a DD; bringing smiles to others makes me smile a little, even if I’m not feeling particularly smiley on a given day. While this truck isn’t particularly old (though the basics of GM’s Squarebody trucks were being designed around the time the featured VW rolled off the production line), its pretty devoid of high tech. Still, I haven’t had a hard time keeping its carbureted heart in tune so that I can count on it to start and run correctly under all normal conditions. It’s pretty easy to work on and mechanical parts are cheap. It doesn’t depreciate. As others have stated, crashworthiness, fuel economy, and emissions are all marks against older cars and trucks. Regarding the first- I fully understand the strong and weak points of my old truck, and driving it is a calculated risk I am willing to take at this point in time. As far as the next two- I’ll never be able to attain the efficiency and emissions levels of a newer vehicle, though I do maintain all of the factory installed pollution controls to the best of my ability. Does that make it a good choice? Hard time coming up with an answer there. I think I’ll call it a wash.
So, taking my own feelings into account, is a 1969 Beetle a viable daily? If it brings you happiness, I would say “Yes”.
A beetle bug! EEeeeKkkk!!!!
My Dad had a ’59 Beetle in his day; it was totalled before I got to the age that I could drive it (nor did I drive the ’68 Renault R10 he bought to replace it)..rather I’ve owed a series of watercooled VWs since 1981, starting with my Scirocco and A2 GTi (neither had power steering, though I admit I missed it in the GTi, especially after I broke 2 ribs and collarbone when trying to park it)…my current (only) car is a 2000 Golf, which some would say is rather long in the tooth.
I’ve driven small cars since getting my license, though they handle fine and would otherwise be fine as a daily driver, cars were much less substantial than they are now for a given size; even going back to my A2 GTi (which itself was more substantial than my A1 Scirocco) the cars probably wouldn’t be able to withstand a collision as well as my current A4 Golf (even more so with newer generation). My first car was really unsubstantial, a 1972 Fiat 128….not only did it rust quickly, it didn’t have much mass to begin with. I think it had a 1100cc engine with manual choke (really everything was manual) that took premium fuel in its 6 gallon gas tank. My Father was of course used to small cars (he owned the ’59 Beetle and ’68 Renault which were small…he even drove Beetles in the Army in Germany in the early 50’s) so he didn’t object to me owning one, not just because it was foreign, but also because it wasn’t likely to do well in an accident especially with a domestic mid-70’s car. But gas mileage was a bit of a deal, I was on a student budget for fuel, so we just lived with it. Not always a good choice, you don’t get to pick who you get into an accident with, and you can’t always prevent one, even if you have a nimble handling vehicle. Certainly I think that’s one reason you can no longer buy the really light high gas mileage vehicles that seemed to disappear after the 90’s , partly because engines were getting so much better that you no longer needed to buy a car that was so light to get good gas mileage.
I bought a 69 Volkswagen 113 in January 1969 and put 100,000 miles on it by June 1974. From mid 1994 until November 2021 I added another 100,000. So in the middle twenty years (1974-1994) the car ran up 235,000 miles; total to date 435,000 miles. Engine has been overhauled twice, at 147K and 257 K. Car has had about as many repairs and replacements as the total mileage would suggest, tho the original clutch activation mechanism from the clutch pedal up to (but not including) the throwout bearing seemed inadequate to the task of dealing with the stiffer pressure plate VW fitted post 40 hp. I still like the car very much but don’t find the need to drive as much now as formerly.
At very good point Bob ;
In 1971 or so VW began using diaphragm typ clutch covers, they reduced pedal effort whist having more grabbing power .
One more thing about older German cars : you’re supposed to take the entire clutch linage apart for cleaning and greasing every 50,000 miles or 5 years, whichever comes first .
-Nate