[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [New Search]
Dave Hall sez: >I doubt there are many here who will get worked up about the >subject, so I shouldn't think you've hurt any feelings! Well, perhaps I will, although doing so is certainly not my intention. I argue that the original VW was a poor design that survived and prospered because the manufacturer clearly understood the importance of assembly line quality control, of the continuity of the product line (although this was an illusion--the last beetle had only one part in common with the first), of establishing well stocked and staffed dealerships, and...of course...clever advertizing. When I bought my new 1957 beetle, some of my friends owned contemporary foreign and domestic cars: The Rennault Dauphine was a nifty-looking 4-door sedan that failed miserably in all the areas where VW succeeded. It stayed but a short time on our shores. The Thunderbird of the 1950s was a dandy design...so Detroit made it bigger, longer, and heavier with 4 doors. No product line continuity. Yucksville, USA. In short, although antiquated in design, the slow, noisy, cramped Beetle could be bought with the confidence that it was well built, that an extensive dealership stood behind it, and that it was reliable and economical to own and operate. So, my thesis is that the VW was poorly designed but so well executed that enough of them have survived so that we "cultists" can enjoy driving, maintaining, and discussing..and arguing about...them.. I welcome folks to shoot down my thesis about "poor design", but please don't amputate on my head. I have owned VWs since 1957...and love 'em. (If anyone wants to kill me, please see that I'm buried in my squareback). Phil dillard@suu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- List info at http://www.vwtype3.org/list or mailto:help@vwtype3.org