WI: VW owned by somebody else

[Masked Grizzly]

V4 could have fit in the rear without needing the shoehorning of the Polo, would just need a different lid.
The Beetle needed a Watercooled engine by 1964, a whole decade earlier,IMO. The V4 was around. If they didn't want to use the competitor from over in Cologne, could have used the AMC Aluminum V4 from Toledo

Volkswagen could have done a lot of things differently including producing the FWD EA48, however even that featured a Flat-Twin version of the existing air-cooled engine.

Besides the AMC V4 was itself air-cooled as opposed to water-cooled and the only engines Volkswagen were willing to entertain was from Porsche (e.g. EA128, etc) prior to acquiring both Auto Union as well as NSU to merge them into Audi.

Volkswagen did carry over the larger Golf/Passat EA827 inline-4 engines to the Type 2 and Type 2 (T3) in OTL for certain markets (including a 5-cylinder version), so it is not completely outside the realm of possibility for non-US/European versions of the Beetle (and Brasília) or even the Type 3 and Type 4 models to carry over the inline-4 EA111 Polo engines and completely discontinue the Flat-4 engines. In fact the Type 3 / Variant derived Volkswagen SP2 was planned to be replaced by the Volkswagen SP3 featuring the larger 1.8-litre EA827 petrol engine.

 

[phx1138]

Frankly, the idea of a Type 1 with a watercooled engine strikes me as heresy.

I'm also less than convinced VW needed watercooled as early as '64.

In the U.S. market, going to a whole new design, with watercooled & FWD, in the mid-'70s (perhaps) makes sense, so something like the Rabbit 5yr sooner (10?). Follow that with the New Beetle a decade or so before OTL.

Meanwhile, keep the Type 1, more/less OTL, in play in Mexico, Central/South America, Africa, & India (& Russia & China, if it's possible).

That may make less sense from a business standpoint than a waterboxer Beetle, but I have some nostalgia (or something) involved. I also think Type 1 fans would shun a watercooled *Type 1, even if styling remained the same.

I don't see the need for deep detuning, if the *Type 1 suspension is upgraded. Candidly, I'd go with MacPherson struts at all 4 corners in the '50s ('51-3?), & add antisway/antiroll bars, too. Maybe start with the 'vert & see how the change is received, while (at the same time) offering a twin-carb or FI upgrade in the 'vert (& the *KG or its TTL equivalent).

On the question of the hatchback *Type 1, & its siblings, any thoughts on the 4dr variants? Some think the 2dr served the total market; from what I've seen, every market & model range offering 2- & 4-drs, the 4dr outsells the 2dr, even if the 4dr actually costs more. That being true, it looks like VW sacrificed a lot of potential sales. Ditto by offering no wagon.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Frankly, the idea of a Type 1 with a watercooled engine strikes me as heresy.

Agree to some extent, especially in the event the Beetle evolves into a Type 3 engined hatchback in the early/mid-60s. However do see the rationale in something like the 70s Super Beetle proposal mentioned in the Jalopnik article, even if eventually adopting a water-cooled inline-4 layout in certain markets (like in the Type 2 and Type 2 T3) for emissions would be a step backwards due to losing the ATL hatchback layout from the ATL Type 3 engined Beetle.

Also have to wonder whether Type 4 or Wasserboxer versions would allow for the OTL 4-door Super Beetle to retain the hatchback layout, let alone whether more radical upgrades to the suspension were envisioned. Here is an article on the SUV-like South African Beetle-based proposal.

Do not think the 3/5-door Beetle hatchback has any need to retain the 2/4-door bodystyle, the latter along with wagon/estate/shooting-brake bodystyles can be left to the Type 3. However the Beetle could have benefited greatly from the introduction of a 4-door variant early on, before being superseded by an ATL 5-door hatchback bodystyle from the early/mid-1960s.

 

[marathag]

The big draw for watercooling the Type 1 besides emissions, is HP and efficiency.

1600 DP was 60HP. Doing the stretch Bug to a 4dr, you will want more power. Datsun was getting 70HP from 1400cc, and with careful drive got over 40mpg with a 5 speed in a B210. A 1600 Beetle would get a bit better than half that with its 4 speed.

Really don't need to change the post '66 rear suspension. It's fine. The front, yeah yes. Not a fan of the Super Bug was, the struts and steering setup could have been better

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The 1600cc air-cooled Flat-4 in the Beetle was apparently capable of being uprated to 65 hp, not sure how much more stretch was left within design in either Type 1 or Pancake-style Type 3 forms (perhaps Porsche could assist in fettling the Pancake Type 3 engine to put out about 70-75 hp?). - https://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-closest-volkswagen-ever-came-to-building-a-1791785041

 

[phx1138]

My thought is, *VW builds only three pans, the *Type 1, *Type 2, & *Type 3. The *Type 1 has every variation: 2/3/4/5dr slant & notch, 5dr wagon (dubious about 3dr wagons), 3dr delivery (or, technically, 3/4, with 1 or 2 rear doors), & 2 'verts (2 & 4 seat); the 'vert is the "hot rod" (twin carb, hotter cam, so forth). The *Type 2 I see as a panel, *Safari, Kombi, pickup, & ambulance; optional 4wd. The *Type 3 is the OTL Thing (civilian Kubelwagen); also optional 4wd. Add a few hundred *Type 2 pans & trannies (& maybe bare engine cases) for Formula Jr or Formula Vee.

The OTL Type 3 I see as having similar styling, but either front/FWD or rear/RWD, watercooled. (I tend to FWD.) Styling, I'm thinking, not unlike OTL's Type 3, & appearing a bit later ('68?) but before OTL's Rabbit.

I'm not a particular fan of swingaxles, so I'd tend to get rid of them ASAP. I also imagine the strut IFS is done better, since it's with fewer restrictions. (I have a sense OTL VW management was scrimping.)

In all, I picture TTL's *Type 1 being improved yearly, & not trivially, but not radically restyled except in ways a VW buff would notice: end of the split, big rear window, bigger windshield, so forth (not even mentioning the number of slots on the engine decklid or shape of the handle ). In essense, make the best possible Type 1, in varieties OTL VW didn't have the wit, or courage, to, & see how well it sells. (IMO, the numbers are a bit staggering. )

Thx for the links; that Type 1 GTI... I want three. (And I'd definitely do it.)

Only one thing about the *GTI: it's underpowered. Give a 2 liter, for a start... (Yeah, I'm the crazy SOB who looks at the Stage 1 455's 510pd-ft & sez, "It's not enuf." Or I'd be asking, "Will that fit in the Nova"? )

As for this, I want two. Wow, that looks great.

 

[marathag]

The 1600cc air-cooled Flat-4 in the Beetle was apparently capable of being uprated to 65 hp, not sure how much more stretch was left within design in either Type 1 or Pancake-style Type 3 forms

You can get more than 70, going with bigger jugs, but it just make the fuel economy problem worse.

The Japanese cars are really a joke in 1960, but they improved both the car, and the Dealer network each year.
The writing was on the wall that the Aircooled had hit its limit in the 1600DP.

The German Domestic market gave a clue what was happening.
VW's share of the car market dropped from 45% in 1960 to 20% in 1972, when they were overtaken by Opel. Domestic Sales dropped over 200k units from 1965 to 1967.

Good export sales to the USA masked this, with halfhearted attempts at the Type 1 replacement over the years that resulted in the Type 3 and 4, left them to the desperation of pulling the ideas that the recently acquired Audi.

The Type 1 was mostly dependable.. The Rabbit with the Audi derived EA111 motor definitely was not that in the USA

The other thing they couldn't have foreseen was Nixon going off the Gold Standard, that dropped the value of the Dollar, and the Mark increased, that made imported VWs a lot more expensive. So plans made to build locally in the USA

The New Stanton plant that VW purchased from Chrysler in an unfinished state was shockingly low on automation for the time, needed parts from other VW parts sources from hours away, like stampings.
This new plant had UAW problems nearly as bad as GM's Lordstown, but that didn't hit the news as often.

So the Rabbit had issues.

VW should have bought a larger plant, a decade sooner when they saw that the US market was so important to the VW bottom line in the mid '60s.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The ideal IMHO would have been for Volkswagen to have a range of around 4-5+ cars from the 1950s to 1960s, not go completely radical to the point of butterflying away Volkswagen's history/issues prior to switching to FWD water-cooled cars (e.g. 50 / Polo, Golf, Passat, etc) though just enough to be considered an objective improvement or unique (e.g. dieselized versions) as opposed to the more conservative nip & tuck approach taken in OTL:

Sub-Beetle model (Type 0?) - essentially a production version of the 146-inch length 650kg Type 534 with different styling possibly shrunken EA97 and 26.5+ hp 1-litre+ flat-4 as well as/or possibly a rear-mounted entry-level EA48-derived flat-twins from a 18 hp 594cc to a 30 hp 792cc (see Gurgel BR-800 / Supermini), possibly updated to a pancake Type 3 flat-twin/four engined 3-door hatchback prior to being replaced by the Polo. The benchmark for the ATL Volkswagen Flat-Twins would be the Puch 500, BMW 700 and Panhard 850, especially the latter should the 1600cc flat-4 Beetle engine be capable of a further stretch to 1700cc to allow for a 850cc flat-twin.

Beetle - initially 2/4-door saloon later Type 3 powered 3/5-door hatchback and later utilizing a 1600cc Type 4 unit (prior to being succeeded by the radical Super Beetle proposal that may or may not utilize the EA111 unit in certain markets like the Type 2 and Type 2 T3 did with the EA827 in certain markets as well as the ATL Brasília or South African SUV-like Project 1021 with optional 4WD and 5-door body depending on the market), the ATL presence of the Sub-Beetle model once it becomes a pancake Type 3 powered 3-door hatchback likely butterfly away the rationale for a 3-door Beetle hatchback except in a few markets.

Type 3 - based on the Beetle platform (with the intention of replacing the 2/4-door saloon Beetle) it features 2/4-door notchback saloon, 3-door variant estate and 2-door Karmann Ghia Type 34 coupe / convertible bodystyles, etc as well as sub-1600cc pancake engines beginning from around 1000-1300cc as more of a Simca 1000 rival in entry-level form up to 1600cc like the Beetle (possibly utilizing a 1600 Type 4 unit). Potentially succeeded by the radical Super Beetle proposal.

Type 4 - Differences include Type 4 engines displacing from 1700-2400cc possibly including a lower-displacement 1600cc version to be used in both the Beetle and Type 3 (along with the ATL 914) as well as 3/5-door hatchback (based on a standard Fastback saloon and has an enlarged rear screen which also functions as a glass tailgate, much like the rear window of a Toyota Tercel Mk1 amongst others. The air intakes have been integrated into the rear wings, the engine lid has been downsized and is probably fixed to the body, implying that the rear seat and luggage floor have been converted to the likes of a Type 4 Variant.), 2/4-door notchback saloon, 3-door estate, 2-door convertible / coupe bodystyles, etc.

EA128 - Similar to real-life prototype though with the following differences, a Type 4-derived flat-six displacing around 2000-3600cc (or 2400-3600cc flat-six along with a possible entry-level 2000-2400cc flat-4), 2-door 4-seater coupe (akin to the 4-seater 695 as opposed to the 2+2 911) along with the 4-door saloon and 5-door estate bodystyles as well as perhaps better styling.

Additionally based on Jurgen Lewandowski's new (and very much recommended) book 50 Years Porsche 914, would have gone much further to differentiate between the Volkswagen and Porsche versions of the 914 in terms of both styling such as the former carrying over the exterior of the Beetle-based Volkswagen Karmann Ghia as well featuring 1600-2400cc Type 4 flat-4 along with possibly 2000/2400-3600cc flat-six engines (that was actually considered at one point during its development).

Also the Type 2 would be similar to OTL, though the Type 2 T3 would utilize the Type 4-based flat-six later Wasserboxer flat-six engines as well as dieselized flat-4s and 4WD prior to being converted in certain markets to inline-4s.

 

[phx1138]

I saw a peak in Type 1 sales around 1960, which should've been a hint.

I would set up production (CKDs at first) in Canada, to avoid the worst U.S. labor trouble but still have market access.

The broader product lineup is a good idea, though IMO a cheaper model undercuts the Type 1's biggest selling point, & is likely to be opposed (vetoed?) by FRG.

I don't see a deep need for the OTL Type 3 until *VW is ready to swap to watercooled & FWD, TBH, if there are 4/5dr & wagon variants of the Type 1. My sense of VW's OTL problems is, the root lies in over-reliance on the single body style, not the single platform, & the unwillingness to make big changes to it.


I like the flat six option. I imagine a narrow-angle four or six (like the VR6), too, & can't decide which I like better.

That said, I wouldn't pull the *Type 1 until sales crashed. I'd be inclined to have it joined around '75 by the first (watercooled inline FWD) *Type 3 (with non-OTL 4dr & 4dr wagon options), but I could also see it with a *VR4, possibly rear (or mid?)-mounted.

I have in mind a total separation of Porsche & VW, so any *914 would be an all-Porsche product (presuming Porsche exists; if not, whatever the TTL equal is). Any "hot rodded" Type 1 is going to be milder, & cheaper, than any OTL Porsche (or any TTL equivalent), but will be the top of the *VW range.

In re the *Type 2s, I don't disagree. I'd also want a factory "RV" variant, like an improved Westphalia. On reflection, I'd put the *Thing on the Type 2 pan, too. It might evolve into the mooted Project 1021, tho I imagine something not unlike it (a hardtop *Thing) from the start.

Given what VW rodders have done, it's not clear to me why you'd put a 1600cc or 1700cc upper limit on the Type 1 case; I'd go bigger. (Then again, a smaller-displacement six, around 2.0, might make more sense: use more/less the same tooling.)

AFAIK, nobody's ever done it for the Type 1 engine, but I wonder about adding a 4v head, too. (Probably overkill for the market segment{s} it fills...)

 

[Masked Grizzly]

The broader product lineup is a good idea, though IMO a cheaper model undercuts the Type 1's biggest selling point, & is likely to be opposed (vetoed?) by FRG.

It depends how technically advanced such a car is, the Lloyd influenced EA48 (length 133-inches) despite its planned flat-twinned engines would have definitely driven the smaller German carmakers under a lot sooner had it been built and utilized to its full potential.

However envision the ATL Type 0 (aka Type 534) Sub-Beetle 2-door saloon / 3-door hatchback model (length 146-inches) as being akin to a max-850cc Flat-Twin powered equivalent of the Fiat 850 or 2-door Simca 1000 like below (credit: Car Design Archives) or even an up-engined BMW 700 with EA97-like styling, placing it a tier above the likes of the 596cc Lloyd 600 / Alexander, 598cc NSU Prinz 4 and 584-688cc Glas Isar (that have more in common with the smaller Fiat 600) yet below the Beetle 5-door hatchback and ATL Type 3 4-door saloon that would feature 1000-1600cc Flat-Four units (and would still sell well in markets that are receptive to the larger engine models over the ATL Type 0 Sub-Beetle model).

 

[phx1138]

I don't say there's not a market for something like the FIAT 850, I just dont think *VW would (or should) be making it.

Maybe that's because I'm more used to bigger cars, I'll admit.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I don't say there's not a market for something like the FIAT 850, I just dont think *VW would (or should) be making it.

Maybe that's because I'm more used to bigger cars, I'll admit.

Do not forget that an ATL 4/5-door Beetle would potentially have a slightly longer wheelbase compared to OTL with any 2/3-door version likely adopting the former's wheelbase on grounds of cost, which by the time of the ATL Super Beetle (say around 1972-1975) would entail becoming slightly larger still.

The ATL Type 0 (aka Type 534) Sub-Beetle meanwhile would have have probably ceased production in 1972 in Western markets like the NSU Prinz / Type 110 in OTL before the introduction of the Audi 50 / mk1 VW Polo in 1974-1975. It is possible that any non-Western Type 0 (aka Type 534) derived model would eventually a resemble a 800-850cc Flat-Twin 3-door (or sub-1043cc EA111 2-door) composite of a Seat 133 and downscaled Brasilia.

 

[phx1138]

Do not forget that an ATL 4/5-door Beetle would potentially have a slightly longer wheelbase compared to OTL with any 2/3-door version likely adopting the former's wheelbase on grounds of cost, which by the time of the ATL Super Beetle (say around 1972-1975) would entail becoming slightly larger still.

Yeah, the *Type 1 is probably going to be about 12" longer WB. I see the *Super appearing around 1955, but not being bigger, just a touch more space-efficient.

The ATL Type 0 (aka Type 534) Sub-Beetle meanwhile would have have probably ceased production in 1972 in Western markets like the NSU Prinz / Type 110 in OTL before the introduction of the Audi 50 / mk1 VW Polo in 1974-1975. It is possible that any non-Western Type 0 (aka Type 534) derived model would eventually a resemble a 800-850cc Flat-Twin 3-door (or sub-1043cc EA111 2-door) composite of a Seat 133 and downscaled Brasilia.

As an idea, it's good. I just don't see *VW, FRG, DKW, NSU, & whoever else is involved, going along, because it would undercut *VW & drive the companies out of business.

That said, if you could pitch it as a co-development of FRG, *VW, & DKW or NSU (or a joint NSU/DKW), & sold by DKW or NSW, I could see it happening. It would require *VW management being willing to move themselves up-market, but since that's more profitable, I don't see a drawback.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Yeah, the *Type 1 is probably going to be about 12" longer WB. I see the *Super appearing around 1955, but not being bigger, just a touch more space-efficient.

Doubt it would feature a 11+ inch wheelbase, was envisioning either the Brazilian Type 3 4-door that manages to carry over the existing wheelbase (if feasible) or the EA160 prototype approach that was basically a LWB Type 3 prototype. That is not to say the ATL early-70s Super Beetle would not feature a slightly longer wheelbase.

Do not really see the ATL Type 0 (aka Type 534) being a significant threat to smaller domestic carmakers compared to the EA48 prototype, aside from the 13-inch difference in length between the two prototypes the former is basically a segment above the likes of the Lloyd 600, NSU Prinz 4 and Glas Isar whereas EA48 is basically the Volkswagen equivalent of a Lloyd done no less by a former Lloyd engineer.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Based on reading Simon Glen's Volkswagen Type 3 book. One way of improving Volkswagen’s air-cooled rear-engined cars above the ATL Type 0 (aka Type 534) without going too radical would be for the ATL Type 3 to essentially be an earlier Type 30 / Variant II, the latter basically being a modified Type 3 platform adapted to feature front MacPherson struts, rack & pinion steering as well as negative roll-radius steering geometry at the front similar and rear CV-joint drive shafts roughly similar to the OTL 1975 Volkswagen Super Beetle.

Otherwise unsure whether to retain the Type 3's torsion bar rear suspension or have it instead adopt the Type 4's coil springs and trailing wishbone rear suspension.

The ATL early-60s Super Beetle would in turn be derived from a shortened version of the ATL Type 3 platform above as a way of amortizing costs (or an early-60s version of the 1975 Super Beetle), featuring both 1.3-1.6 Type 3 Pancake engines as well as a 3/5-door hatchback bodystyle, with the platform's extra width possibly adding scope for it to easily feature larger 1.7-2.0 Type 4 engines (as is reputedly the case with Type 4-powered Type 3 conversions).

Its replacement would either be the early/mid-70s radical modernized yet retro-looking 4-door Super Beetle proposal mentioned in the Jalopnik article (obviously Type 4 powered) or an earlier late-60s Type 3-based Brasilia 3/5-door hatchback (that also features larger Type 4 units).

OTL Volkswagen of Brazil would provide the rough template for ATL Volkswagen Europe/US to follow in terms of exterior styling with the likes of the ATL 1.3/1.5-2.0-litre Type 3 (a 2/4-door three-box saloon with 3-door wagon), 1.7-2.4-litre Type 4 (a 2/4-door three-box saloon, 3/5-door fastback hatchback, etc) and 2.0-3.7-litre EA128 all featuring an earlier version of Marcio Piancastelli's "Leiding Nose" used in a number of Brazilian Volkswagens.

Meanwhile the ATL Type 3 would underpin the ATL European/US versions of the Volkswagen Karmann Ghia TC (in place of the Type 34 Karmann Ghia and powered by 1700-2000cc Type 4 units), ATL Volkswagen SP2 (featuring pop-up head-lights in US spec and powered by 1800-2000cc Type 4 units later 1.8-2.0 EA827) and the ATL Volkswagen Brasilia instead of all 3 being derived from the Beetle-based Karmann Ghia Type 14 platform.

 

[marathag]

Type 3's torsion bar rear suspension

Heavy trailing link arm that did not hold up, IIRC
Or do more like what Chrysler did from 1957 to 1989 with torsion bars with double wishbone

Double Wishbone is more expensive with more parts than trailing arm or MacPherson struts, but do give far better handling and better ride, plus takes up less volume, an advantage in smaller vehicles

Now it is possible to have longitudinal bars for front and rear, rather than VWs Transverse setups. Longer bars are better.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

It would depend on whether OTL Volkswagen investigated a more Dodge like arrangement, though can easily see ATL Volkswagen adopting an earlier Type 30 / Variant II suspension arrangement from the early-60s.

In scenario where ATL Volkswagen adopts an earlier Type 30 / Variant II suspension arrangement and the Chevrolet Corvair features front anti-roll bar as standard from the outset, it would be interesting to see which cars Ralph Nader instead focuses his attention on in an ATL Unsafe at Any Speed.

 

[yulzari]

Heavy trailing link arm that did not hold up, IIRC
Or do more like what Chrysler did from 1957 to 1989 with torsion bars with double wishbone

Double Wishbone is more expensive with more parts than trailing arm or MacPherson struts, but do give far better handling and better ride, plus takes up less volume, an advantage in smaller vehicles

Now it is possible to have longitudinal bars for front and rear, rather than VWs Transverse setups. Longer bars are better.

The Morris Minor was doing this in 1948.

 

[marathag]

The Morris Minor was doing this in 1948.

Well, yes, but with lever shock unit for the upper arm, along with the kingpin setup limited the advantages that a 'real' upper wishbone that had far better geometry and have shocks that actually dampened, unlike any lever unit

 

[phx1138]

Or do more like what Chrysler did from 1957 to 1989 with torsion bars with double wishbone

I like that. That gives me the greater space efficiency of the OTL Super & better handling across the range, good for TTL's *KG. (Also applies to TTL's *Porsche.)

an earlier Type 30 / Variant II, the latter basically being a modified Type 3 platform adapted to feature front MacPherson struts, rack & pinion steering as well as negative roll-radius steering geometry at the front similar and rear CV-joint drive shafts roughly similar to the OTL 1975 Volkswagen Super Beetle.

That's very like what I imagine for TTL's *Super Beetle, except using the Type 1 pan (which TTL would be about 12" longer WB).

to easily feature larger 1.7-2.0 Type 4 engines (as is reputedly the case with Type 4-powered Type 3 conversions).

It remains unclear to me why the Type 3 case is incapable of being stretched to 2.0; it makes more sense to me not to replace it with a new design unless absolutely necessary.

an earlier late-60s Type 3-based Brasilia 3/5-door hatchback

I can easily see TTL's Type 3 equivalent strongly resembling the Brasilia. Somehow, I see it on a Golf platform, tho.

Volkswagen Karmann Ghia TC (in place of the Type 34 Karmann Ghia ...)

I don't see the Type 34 ever happening.

powered by 1700-2000cc Type 4

I'd go as high as 2500cc or so, either on the Type 3 case or a closely-based six, in TTL's KG: it'd be the more commonly-styled one; the TC fastback would never happen.

Volkswagen SP2

I see that in mid-'70s, probably watercooled FWD. I'd prefer styling a bit closer to the Monza fastback; this looks a bit tail-heavy (rear engine?) & nose-droopy.

featuring pop-up head-lights

Never, never, never!

If the KG needs replacement, I picture something akin the VW do Brasil Puma: