VW, which had made small incremental changes to the Beetle its hallmark, amped up its tortoise-pace significantly starting in 1965. That year brought much larger glass areas all-round. 1966 ushered in a whopping 25% increase in hp, thanks to the livelier and higher-revving 50 hp 1300 engine. One might have assumed that the 1300 would stick around for a few years, but no, for 1967 VW not only increased the engine to 1500 cc and gave it higher (lower numerical) gearing but also made a fairly significant change in its rear suspension, widening its track, softening the torsion bars’ spring rate, and adding a transverse spring, very similar to what Chevrolet did to the 1964 Corvair’s rear swing axle suspension.
The results were the biggest single change ever to the feel, ride and handling of the VW to date. The first time I drove one, I was almost shocked: the bump in torque and change in gearing made it feel more like…an American car! Engine noise was more muted, and shift points came later. I remember driving a friend’s 1500 and suddenly realizing that I was still in third gear on the freeway! That would never have happened in my 1200s or my brother’s 1300. And the rear suspension changes now induced more understeer, making it feel more…American!
Presumably that was the objective. I had mixed feelings about it.
I know; objectively the 1967 and up Beetles were “better” in terms of their softer ride, more stable handling and reduced engine speeds. It made for a more relaxed driving experience. But that’s not what I was looking for so much, and I had decidedly mixed feelings about it. I liked the tighter gearing of the 1200/1300s, which made the 1300 the sportiest Beetle ever, and my big bore 1350 (formerly 1200) could be made to hustle through the twisties and such at surprising speeds. And I liked its oversteer, which made zipping through curves effortless, with just a nudge of the wheel in the direction of the turn at the beginning, and then unwinding it back to the middle, or even a bit of reverse lock as oversteer made itself felt.
Oversteer has a bad name and reputation, unfortunately. But if you’re friends with it, it’s lovely; kind of like riding a bike; you don’t so much turn the handlebars as just lean into the curve a bit. The pre-’67 VWs were like that too.
Yes, it kept you on your toes, but then for me that was the whole joy of driving. Who wanted a duller, quieter, understeering VW? Not me!
The 1500 had very different torque and power curves than the 1300, which made its 50 hp at 4600 rpm whereas the 1500 made its 53 hp at 4200 rpm. The 1500’s torque bump was nice, but the change in gearing meant that the 1500 wasn’t all that faster than the 1300, only 0.3 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. That difference could easily be made up by driving technique, meaning that I had no problem keeping up with a 1500 in my brother’s 1300, and my 1350 was still faster, thanks to keeping it at maximum tune.
But I was clearly not the driver VW was thinking about in making these changes. It was now a more relaxed and pleasant daily driver and commuter-mobile for the overwhelming majority of American VW buyers.
Is this where the much repeated nonsense about the Beetle engine cover started?
The engine cover redesign was intended to make the number (licence) plate mounting more vertical.
Even if the engine was physically larger it doesn’t sit behind this part of the engine cover, the generator stand does.
Or VW could have been making changes for the sake of it, whilst they searched for a Beetle replacement.
For that matter it didn’t look like it was for cooling either, VW didn’t even start putting cooling slots in the deck lid (of the sedan) until later.
I owned a ’66 and a ’67 for long periods. The ’67 did feel ‘crisper’, but for me the only meaningful difference was the sealed-beam headlights. Driving at night was much easier.
All American-market cars starting in ’40-’41 had sealed-beam headlamps. But on your ’66 they were low-wattage 6-volt units behind glass covers which stole some of their meagre output.
I find it amusing that of the five photos R&T included, three are of the seat belt anchor, a “12 Volt” sticker, and some protrusion in the engine lid. I guess they figured by 1967 everyone knew what a Bug looked like.
Original R&T article had a “slight” error..Switched to 12v for 67? Yes! Switched to alternator for 67? NO! Not until 1973-74 for type1…
Yep. The change to 12 volt was much needed and was the really big deal for 1967. The alternators came later though, many years later. Hard to believe that a reputable car magazine could make a mistake like that. All you have to do is read the manufacturers specs. The new headlights actually made the bug look a little more modern but I now appreciate the older headlights more. I think they suit the beetle form better.
Your comment about about driving a friend’s 1500 and suddenly realizing that I was still in third gear on the freeway rings true. An acquaintance had bought a 1970 Beetle new and loved the car, but was puzzled by the relatively poor gas mileage during a cross-country trip to visit her father.
Although, I don’t know how you could possibly NOT know this, my acquaintance had no idea that the car’s transmission had 4-speeds. She had previously owned a Ford Falcon with “3-on-the-tree” and for the first few thousand miles she owned the VW, it was never shifted out of third gear. Contributing to this confusion was the fact that the dealer had replaced the standard shift knob with an optional, more expensive, one that displayed some sort of German castle on it, instead of the usual shift-pattern.
I think it was her father who figured out why the car had been getting such poor gas mileage. After that she was even happier with the car, as the engine noise dropped significantly when driving on the highway and the gas mileage also improved significantly. All those miles driven in third gear did not seem to have any effect on the car’s reliability (what with the car being so well-built car by elves in the Black Forest, and all that, you know).
I once drove a friend’s 1960 something Pontiac Catalina with Hydramatic for a while on the interstate with it in “S” or whatever was that kept it in 3rd gear. Wasn’t exactly VW level obvious though! No one noticed.
The stock shift knob was plain plastic without any shift pattern markings.
Wasn’t there a shift pattern printed on the dashboard in front of the shifter? I always thought it odd that they wouldn’t put the shift pattern on the shift knob itself, or did they think that just meant you wouldn’t be able to see it whilst using it?
RE : Shift Knobs & patterns ;
The basic knob was plain black beginning in the 1967 model year but VW AG had nifty accessory knobs that had the shifting pattern casted in and detailed in white paint .
Earlier versions up to the 1964 year models were ivory and also sold optionally with the shift patters, it was blue on those .
Many dealers and J.C.Whitless et al sold decals that went on the ash tray showing the shift pattern too .
The 1970 one year only 1600 engine was a single port, in 1971 came the twein port engines in 1500 and 1300 size, some twin port (D case) 1200C.C. engines were sold in En gland, I have no idea what other markets but never in the U.S.A. .
-Nate
I rebuilt a friends 59 and fitted the running gear front beam and brakes from a 63 which had a 72 1200 motor fitted it went together like Lego except the front fenders they changed the shape in 63 not that you can tell by just looking at them off the car I had to rebuild the originals and they were rough lots of cracks. Damn thing drove quite well to for a stock old beetle.
@Bryce ;
As you know, some like how they drive, others refuse to accept that apart from being deathtraps they were in fact pretty good cars and *very* hard to kill ~ why they sold so many and why for _DECADES_ you had to wait for one to show up for sale .
I’ve had no problem motorvating early Beetles *very* quickly on the mountains and canyons, dirt, sand and gravel roads where ‘normal’ cars failed .
To each their own, some can’t accept that .
-Nate
No, they really weren’t. They were slow, uncomfortable, unheated, ill-handling, poor-braking relics from the 1930s. The only thing they did well wad “cute”. There was no RATIONAL reason to choose one over a more modern car even in 1967.
Were you there in 1976 John ? .
I was and well remember the many cranky young and old guys, always white who bitched and complained endlessly about VW’s , _especially_ when their American Hot Rods couldn’t keep up in the twisty bits nor stay on the snowy roads…
facts are facts, wish upon all the stars you want, won’t change anything .
-Nate
My mother had two. They were awful cars. She considered the Mustang II that replaced her last one a revelation. It could sit in traffic without seizing, it had HEAT, it used less gas, it was faster, and it wouldn’t spin easily.
Cool ;
I was one of the very few who liked Mustang II’s, they were pretty wretched and couldn’t possibly keep up with a properly tuned 1500 Beetle .
I was there, not as a child listening to adults complaining .
-Nate
The Mustang would happily run 65mph, and keep up with traffic. Neither VW could. Both were slower than her brothers slant six Fury.
Shift pattern decal on the dash was probably a Federal safety requirement as it first appeared on the 1968 models.
In the Road Test Results page I’d like to know how they performed and panic stop from 80 MPH when the top speed was only 78?
Downhill test strip?
I love using oversteer on twisty roads probably one of the reasons I really enjoy driving my Citroens with passive rear steering its easy to get it going and just glide thru turns the old Hillman behaves the same on gravel roads the back end can be stood out easily and Ive been thouroughly enjoying driving it on the same gravel roads I first learned on, I like cars that behave properly on low traction surfaces which were really where VWs shone.
Agreed that earlier Beetles were more fun too drive but not to lazy drivers .
The 1500C.C. engine was introduced to North America in the 1963 Typ II’s, back then getting one from a wreck was a big deal and cause to brag .
-Nate
Another fan of a bit of oversteer. IMHO the ’67 Beetle was the best of them all. Yeah, the IRS a year or two later (depending on transmission) and dual ports were improvements, but the ’67 was the best combination of of the old, bucket-headlight Beetles and the new IRS versions. And even the dual ports weren’t that big of improvement due to emissions controls. Plus, ’67s were really easy to work on, with spade connectors instead of threaded nuts on the generator. With a lift the engine could be pulled in about ten minutes. The redesigned door locks and new backup lights didn’t didn’t hurt either.
Torquier engine and more sedate suspension made it a hit in the US.
So R&T shows a 22+ second 0-60 time…What? Drove a ton of the bugs, all years. Don’t remember them being that slow…but then again I was stoned a lot in those days. I’ve seen glaciers with faster speed than this R&T article. Thanks Paul, great site.
Agreed, and it conflicts with the C&D road test of a ’67 Beetle which they clocked 0-60 in 17.4 seconds:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-cd-road-test-comparison-1967-renault-10-and-vw-1500-renaults-last-shot-at-the-beetle/
I have the Can and Driver road test of the 1966 Beetle 1300 from their December, 1965 issue. They found the 1300 to be meaningfully slower than the 1200 40hp model that they tested in 1963. The 1966 1300 took 26.3 seconds to reach 60 miles per hour, having completed the quarter mile at only 59 mile per hour. They concluded:
Checking back through our file on road tests in both American and European magazines, we found that acceleration times on all VW models varied wildly. In four different tests, involving the old 36-hp version and the 40-hp model, 0-60 mph times varied by as much as nine seconds. Our 1963 test of the 40-hp car produced the best time of all, 24.3 seconds, which was exactly two seconds faster than the times we recorded for the 1300!
This is the car in which I learned to drive stick in 1968. My grandfather had retired in 1967 and decided that he didn’t -really- need a car. So he bought a bug… which my grandmother hated and refused to ride in. This caused some problems as you can imagine, as she stayed home, essentially on strike, for a year. Oddly enough this was also the year my grandfather took up fishing – almost every day, all day.
In any case, I was learning to drive that year, and my grandfather generously insisted on driving to our house and teaching me to drive a manual for hours at a time.
Now I wonder if we had the same grandmother?
This view that the 1500cc sedan was somehow an America-only change is nonsense. I owned a German home market ’67 Deluxe Sunroof Sedan. The things you didnt like, engine, gearing and suspension were identical. Different was retention of six volt electrics and, just to make things interesting, four bolt rims with single master cylinder front disc brakes.
What I wonder, and dont have data, is if the 1300cc version also had the revised rear suspension. I suspect it did.
This view that the 1500cc sedan was somehow an America-only change is nonsense.
I neither said or implied that. I said that this change was clearly beneficial to most/all American VW buyers in that it was better suited to the conditions in the US: lots of highway/freeway driving. Which explains why in the US only the 1500 was offered; the 1300 was a ’66 only car. Americans prefer low-rpm torque over higher rpm peak power. That’s a well known fact.
And of course the 1600 became the standard engine in US Beetles in 1970.
FWIW, the 1300cc engine continued to be the most popular engine choice in German/European Beetles by far right (later 1302/1303) to the end of its availability, as the 1500 (later 1302S, 1303S) was deemed to be too thirsty and not worth the extra cost initially and in poorer fuel economy.
The changes to the rear suspension were also on European 1300s starting in 1967.
Agreed the 1300 was very popular in other markets right up to the end of production. Is there a taxation break at 1300cc in some countries? The reason I suspect this is that my Honda Fit, sold as a Jazz elsewhere, has a 1300cc engine in some markets.
I actually own a 1968 Euro-spec Beetle with the 1300cc engine…it has the revised rear suspension though my car lost its equalizer spring (ie: Z-bar) at some point in its history. Not a big deal…I don’t normally drive with big loads in the back.
In ’68 Europeans got a choice of the VW1200 (6V stripped car), my VW1300, and the VW1500 with the 1500cc engine and (IIRC) front disk brakes.
The Beetle’s days are obviously numberedWell, okeh, fair enough; I guess 4,500(ish) is a number. And if we count Mexican-market units, I guess 13,358(ish) is a number, as well!
Decades after it should have been euthanized
Oversteer has a bad name and reputation because most of the time for most people, it’s a bloody disaster, particularly with a swing axle that is unrestrained from tucking under and possibly parking the car gutters down. That said, it’s fun on an empty dirt road – not entirely unknown in these parts – even in quite clumsy things like an old Falcon with 7 zillion turns of the wheel to keep things in check. But on an everyday vehicle, practical and rational and safe, it is not.
The Superbug didn’t oversteer a zot. Properly-designed rear suspension and no power meant it couldn’t, but boy, was it fun to drive. Didn’t really understeer, either. Just went around corners fast. The one I drove (a ’74?) also had rack and pinion steering, and wasn’t even bothered by blowing in the wind. A cracker of a machine (on the days it ran, another story). Turned out it WAS possible to improve on 1938’s highest tech.
Imagine trying to sell a 2000 Prius today (I’m giving this ’67 a ’47 date for leading tech, given the war). Even if the 1st Prius had the superb reputation for reliability like the Beetle in its time – it was more of an unknown – who’d buy a slow, ugly, safety-deficient thing like that in 2021?
The existence of the waggy-arsed, inordinately slow, cramped and comparatively thirsty Beetle in ’67 shows how it is that reputation can mean just about everything.
This would have been of interest to my Father, who was in the market for a replacement for his ’59 Beetle (well, the next year, 1968) when it was totalled by a teenage driver when parked in front of our house (had 1 car garage, despite just becoming 2 car family with the ’59 Beetle).
He actually had some history with the Beetle, as a serviceman in the Army in Germany in the 1950’s (he would probably have ended up in Korea, but for a terrible train accident which he avoided but a significant number from his regiment perished in…to avoid too many casualties from the same town, he was among those sent to postwar Germany).
He also drove REO trucks, but no Jeeps, instead he was issued Beetles. He picked up the ’59 in pretty rusty shape (this in Vermont) so it probably wasn’t too much long for the world even if the car wasn’t totalled. It had the rusty floor under the battery problem which caused the battery to drag on the ground when it eventually broke through.
However, right about that time the company he worked with started sending him to France on business, and I think that had him replace the Beetle with a new Renault R10 in 1968. He wasn’t into cars, but probably was aware that the Dauphine didn’t have the best reputation, but that didn’t sway him. Of course the R10 had 4 doors rather than 2 for a Beetle, and he did have a family, but as this was his 2nd car, we seldom all travelled in the Beetle nor the Renault, but that could have been a factor. I don’t think fuel economy was that much of an issue in 1968, but likely he did like the engine over the drive axle, as the R10 was also rear engine/RWD (I think the last Renault to have that configuration), otherwise he could have bought a more standard layout. It was only a commuter car, but as we lived in Vermont, traction was a consideration in the winter. On our 2nd tour up in Vermont (we lived there 5 years starting mid 1960s and then again 10 years later for another 7) he bought a ’76 Subaru, which back then still offered FWD rather than 4WD/AWD, again, sure he wanted a car with good traction, and FWD was still pretty uncommon, you could buy a Civic or Rabbit or Fiat 128, but they were a bit pricey. He also looked at the Datsun F10, but didn’t like the vent on the hood that looked like a last minute engineering patch (maybe for carburator icing?)…don’t think the odd looks bothered him (the Subaru was not much better, and my Mother never cared for the appearance of the R10, which she always said looked the same coming and going, it was pretty symmetric).
Of course the improvements in the ’67 would be a consideration…know it was a 1/2 year where some got 12V ignition. The ’59 was pretty primitive with no gas gauge, but they were all that way. Funny thing I remember about the Renault was my Dad carried a battery charger in the front “trunk” which had settings for 6v and 12v batteries; I don’t remember if the R10 was still 6V or if it was 12V yet. But it was his first car with Michelin radials, within a few years all cars would stop coming with bias ply…though our ’73 Ford had disasterous Firestone 500s which delaminated within 500 miles (maybe that’s what name signified?) fortunately found by a mechanic during a routine servicing, before they could fail my Dad had them changed out.