Automatics teamed up with relatively modest-output four cylinder engines have a bad rep for being much more sluggish than the manual version. But that wasn’t always the case, and this is the second one that defies that, shortly after R&T’s review of the Austin America’s with its “exceptional” four speed automatic. Strictly speaking, this Squareback with VW’s brand new three-speed automatic was 0.6 seconds slower in the quarter mile than the manual, but given that it took 22.3 seconds, that’s essentially an imperceptible difference.
A bit of a surprise, but perhaps the bigger one is that R&T was not happy for the most part with the new semi-trailing arm independent rear suspension. Bring back the swing axles?
The electronic fuel injection system (new in 1968) improved VW’s already very good throttle response even further, never mind the quick starting, no stumbling and all-round superb driveability.
The automatic was praised for its quick response in downshifting, which probably alone counted for a considerable amount of the positive impression it made. On the other hand, the absolute level of performance, which included a 20.3 second 0-60 time, was just slow, for a car that was not all that cheap.
As to the new IRS, R&T brings up an interesting point about why it was less than ideal in some circumstances: the VW trailing arm suspension, which did not allow camber changes (unlike the typical SLA front suspensions) was designed to partner and harmonize with the original swing axle at the rear. Teaming it with the new IRS created excessive initial understeer. R&T found that their tester did not have the critical F/R tire pressure differential, and when the corrected that, there was “a marked improvement even though the low-speed maneuvering…was still twitchy and unsettling”. This is all a bit of a surprise, but then I don’t really have much experience in these.
Did the parallel trailing arm suspension’s unpleasant camber response to body roll complement the swing axle rear suspension, or did it merely serve to discourage the sorts of cornering speeds where the swing axles became deadly? It is far easier for average drivers to deal with initial understeer than roll oversteer, and the early understeer of the parallel trailing arms would have told such drivers that they’re going plenty fast enough.
I’m surprised they changed the tire pressures from 24/27 to 17/27 to address understeer. When I used that tactic on older FWD cars with skinny radials (I know this VW had bias ply tires) I’d raise the front tire pressure significantly, as that should reduce slip angle. I realize the weight distribution is different but this doesn’t really make sense. And in any case, I’d think that 17 psi is awfully low even for the 38% front weight distribution and may have contributed to the “twitchy and unsettling feel”. OTOH, I suppose VW’s engineers and even R&T’s folks knew more than I do. Though I also feel like their assessment of the power is contradictory; “superb” up to 45 mph, but “moderate” for stop and go commuter traffic. Maybe in LA in the 1960’s stop and go commuter traffic went over 45, not so much today.
I recently noticed a Squareback parked in my neighborhood, and I’ll walk over today and see if it’s an automatic.
They didn’t say that reducing the front tire pressure addressed the initial understeer. They said the handling was “spooky” with the higher front pressure, and that was improved when the pressure was reduced.
17/27 is likely the VW recommended tire pressure for the vehicle, not something R&T just tried for the fun of it. Pretty much the same pressures recommended for my ’68 Bug, though I run mine at ~20/29
The Squareback’s weight distribution is similar to a Corvair. GM recommended 15/25 tire pressures or something like that. Most Corvair owners today, using radials, keep the 10-pound difference but run 20/30 or 22/32. I have a ’64 Corvair and I find that running radials under 20 psi in front leads to mushy handling, not twitchy. On the other hand, having equal or close to equal pressures in a rear engined VW or Corvair will definitely give you a twitchy feel, as the steering gets too light and the front tires don’t feel firmly on the road.
When I switched the ’67 Bug from bias to radial tires, I raised the tire pressures a bit. VW’s recommendation was 18/27 for 155SR15 vs 16/24 for 560-15 in later owners manuals.
These were very different from Beetles .
The front end still retained the parallel trailing arms but had ball joints, not link pins .
The skinny bias ply tires really didn’t help the handling .
The BOSCH D-Jetronic fuel injection was very crude, it works well but didn’t age all that well .
A *very* expen$ive choice when new, nearly $3,000.00 .
-Nate
The Beetle got ball joints starting in 1966. But yes, the front suspension was not exactly the same in certain details.
Good day. Anyone knows about Canadian beetles? I lived in Canada from 1963 to 1968, and I swear we had a Custom model with the 36hp engine and king pin front end for the ’67 model year. I’m an old guy, and maybe my memory is failing me. Sometimes I remember dates but not details, or vice versa. Thanks.
Canadian Standard Beetles are a little know thing .
It’s possible your ’67 #111 had a 36HP engine but I’d bet more it had a 40HP version .
The sturdy 36HP engine was used in the “fresh Air Heating” Beetles, few survive .
A Canadian spec. Beetle was mostly a U.S.A. safety wise, they had hydraulic brakes, flashing turn signals and so on but no body nor window trims and painted bumpers and the 1950’s versions still used the 1940’s three spoke steering wheel .
Very rare cars indeed .
-Nate
I had a Canadian Standard (the earlier ones were called Canadian Standard, the later ones Canadian Custom).
Some info here – https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/my-ex-curbside-classic-1962-volkswagen-beetle-canadian-standard-another-canadian-market-oddball/
From what I can recall this trans shifted a bit harder than the typical US full auto but trans was, like the EFI, very reliable. In daily driving acceleration was little different from the manual version. I don’t know who made transmission but it was a good one.
R&T is nitpicking the handling. I owned a ’64 T3 and a couple of 71-72s, all manuals. The IRS cars handled more like American cars. VW corporate was almost certainly spooked about Nader’s criticism of the swing axle Corvair and in addition to converting to IRS as the Corvair did a few years earlier, VW built in some understeer to make it feel “more American.” The feel of the car wasn’t unsettling.
Rollovers were common accidents with beetles fortunately the bodyshell was strong enough for them to survive and enough left usually to build a dune buggy, VW would have been well aware of the Beetle handling shortcomings on swing axles, There were two or three engineering outfits here building farm buggies from rolled or otherwise crashed VWs one even offered an engine upgrade to Exxex V4s unloved in Transit vans engines were plentiful
VW added a compensator spring, commonly called a “Z-Bar”, to the rear of ’67 and ’68 Beetles to try and deal with the swing axle’s shortcomings in hard cornering situations. Basically if you take a hard turn, when the body pushes down on the inner tire the Z-Bar will push the outer tire down to prevent it tucking under the car. ’69 it became a non-issue as the Beetle went to IRS.
My ’68 was missing the actual Z-Bar but the mounts for it were still there 🙁
Would never have guessed they weighed “north” of 2200 pounds. Wonder if our “70 fastback did? It was an “auto trans”.
24.5mpg “Normal driving”; not bad. What was the closest domestic equivalent? An automatic AMC American wagon @18mpg? Just guessing. I don’t remember any of the Big 3 offering compact or subcompact wagons that year. The Falcon wagon was an intermediate.
The parallel suspension definitely handled better.
The fuel injection setup had a two-stage digital throttle response with a noticeable half-second delay. When I drove a manual squareback I naturally stomped harder than necessary to get the sense of moving forward. Come on, dammit! MOVE!
With the automatic the delay wasn’t noticeable, so there was less “need” to stomp.
In other words, the auto felt faster and got slightly better gas mileage.
Dad bought one of these, used, as his first import. With dealer-installed A/C, it was a perfect commuter in heavy LA traffic, more nimble and double the gas mileage of his previous Detroit iron.
Hi. Could some-one explain the workings of the Z bar? I’m stumped. Thanks.PS prefer if you could draw little pictures showing force and movement
https://1967beetle.com/z-bar/
Tried posting a link to a website with detailed info about the Z-bar but it doesn’t appear to have been accepted. Do a Google search on “VW Beetle 1967 z-bar” and you should find the page…it’s on a website dedicated to 1967 Beetles.
Thanks,Mr.Fereez. I’ll try that.
I’ve owned Beetles and Squarebacks. You just don’t take your foot of the gas in a corner. And you’ll never roll one. Back-off? Now that’s just stupid.
Traded in my 65(?) Beetle for a 70 square back. Drove it to California and back with 3 people. Had to get a fuel air adjustment in New Mexico to make it over the mountains.
Back in Ohio I blew a cylinder ,possibly from running too lean ? Cost about $100. To fix.