I think Volkswagen may be unique among carmakers that started before the dominance of transverse-front-engine/front-wheel drive cars (which I’ll peg around, what, 1980?) in that they have never really made a conventional Syteme Panhard front engine/rear drive car. Pretty much every other major automaker started with such cars, even ones that later became known for other layouts. Well, I suppose Saab also hasn’t, only making FWD cars. Huh. Okay, still, most other carmakers have at least built a front engine/rear drive car at some point in their history. Has Volkswagen ever done so?
That’s actually a trickier question to answer than you might think, for two reasons. Well, two vehicles, I suppose.
Volkswagen started building rear-engine/rear-drive cars from the beginning, and used that as the basis for all of their cars until they acquired NSU and Auto Union in 1969, which began their transition to front engine/front drive cars, which they still stick with to this day.
Sure, they make plenty of all-wheel drive cars now, but they still don’t currently offer an old-school front-engine/rear drive car. But maybe they did? Maybe still do? Let’s consider this:
That’s a Volkswagen LT. It looks kind of like a swole Vanagon, but it’s actually a completely different platform, and was only sold as a commercial vehicle, unlike the Vanagon or other VW Type 2s like the Microbus.
Where the Vanagon and other Type 2s had the traditional VW rear-engine layout, the LT series, which began in 1975, were a cabover design, with the engine between the front seats, which seems to be juuussttt ahead of the front axle, making this a front engine/rear-drive design.
The question here is does a commercial van like this still count? Or are passenger cars a different category, and this doesn’t count? The LT series ended in 2006, but now VW sells the Crafter, also a RWD commercial vehicle, but that’s a re-badged Mercedes-Benz Sprinter.
So, I’m not really sure if the LT series counts as a front engine/rear drive car. It is a front engine/rear drive vehicle, though. So, maybe?
Now, there is another VW-badged car – wait a minute, crap, I just thought of another one. Another truck. Let’s get that out of the way, first.
Behold the VW Taro!
If you’re saying hey, that looks like a Toyota Hilux, that’s because it is a Toyota Hilux, just wearing a VW badge. But, it is front engine/rear drive! So does that count? Or does it not because it’s a truck? Or because it’s not really a VW, but a Toyota?
If you’re not okay with the truck part but are okay with the badge-engineering, then this one should meet the requirements. This is the VW 1500:
If that doesn’t look like a Volkswagen, that’s because, again, it’s really not one. It’s a Hillman Avenger. Or a Plymouth Cricket. Or a Dodge Polara, or a Sunbeam 1300 or a Talbot Avenger. This car was actually sold under 13 different names!
And one of those names was the Volkswagen 1500.
This was a product of Volkswagen Argentina after Chrysler sold their Argentinian works to VW in 1980, and the VW 1500 came out in 1990 to 1991. It’s a front engine/rear drive car, no question, but is it really a VW?
So, I think you can see the conundrum: VW has sold at least three (okay, four, with the Crafter) front engine/rear drive cars, but one was a commercial cabover vehicle (though developed actually by VW) and the other two were just Toyotas and Hillman/Talbot/Chryser/Sunbeam/Dodge whatevers.
So what do you think? Does this count? It’s important!
“now VW sells the Crafter, also a RWD commercial vehicle, but that’s a re-badged Mercedes-Benz Sprinter.”
Yes, until 2017.
Volkswagen handed in the divorce paper and went separate ways away from Mercedes-Benz. The second-generation Crafter was entirely developed by Volkswagen and introduced in 2017.
The LT and crafter counts definitely. Is this one of those articles you sort of write while you think about them again?
Hmmmmm…..litmus test time. Has Aston Martin made a tiny city car?
I guess it all comes down to the question. Built or design car truck but VW trucks aren’t really real trucks but what did VW build?
No true
ScotsmanVolkswagen!The 1500 absolutely counts, especially because it was also made as a station wagon, (named Rural, just like the local Ford Falcon SW), and station wagons always get a pass. The Taro doesn’t count, as it didn’t come out as a station wagon.
I mean, wasn’t the Porsche 924 originally developed by VW before Porsche took it over? It had an Audi/VW 4 cylinder engine in the front even in the production car when it debuted, and was RWD. I feel like that’s the closest in terms of being a VW-developed car and not just a rebadge.
I agree, this is the best answer.
Came here to say this..
The Crafter hasn’t been a rebadged Sprinter since 2017, it’s purely a VW effort and is available in RWD.
LT counts! You could get it as an RV with a really lovely Westfalia kit, the Sven Hedin. Look it up 🙂
Also the LT came 4 years before the Vanagon, so it’s more likely the T3 (Vanagon) that looks like a shrunken LT 😉
“Well, I suppose Saab also hasn’t, only making FWD cars.”
How pedantic do you want to get about this? You can say that SAAB only made FWD cars and be technically correct.
But they sold vehicles with SAAB badges that weren’t FWD. They sold an AWD car made by Subaru. They also sold a GMT360 SUV… those might have all been AWD… or did they sell any that had RWD only? I don’t remember. (edit: Wikipedia says all 9-7X were AWD.)
But if the VW Taro is a VW, the SAAB 9-2 is a SAAB, so you’re wrong.
“How pedantic do you want to get about this? You can say that SAAB only made FWD cars and be technically correct.”
They made the 9-3X with a Haldex 4wd-system so even that isn’t correct.
If we’re being pedantic about this, the 92 is a SAAB whereas the 9-2 is a Saab.
Badged as a VW, maybe not, but Bentley and Porsche, sure.
Torchinsky, if you’re lucky, some day you’re going to look back on your life and realize that a lot of the shit you wrote was utterly and completely useless, and articles like this are a prime example.
The same could be said for most things in life outside of family, community, and health.
And every bit of it was pure gold.
If you’re lucky, maybe someday someone will say the same about you.
Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the triple ball vortex furnace combustion chamber. Go watch the Turboencabulator video three times as penance.
Sounds like somebody needs to re-synchronize their cardinal gram-meters and reduce side-fumbling in their lunar wane shaft.
I’m assuming you meant this as a compliment.
That doesn’t sound very lucky.
He’s getting paid for it, so he’s got that on you.
WTF. It’s one thing to criticize DT for buying more stupid shit and half-ass fixes, but that’s just plain mean.
useless information is why I come here.
So long as we’re splitting hairs, the LT was sold to noncommercial buyers in campervan form.
This factoid puts me in the Yes camp. Thanks for it
To become even more pedantic, just for fun — those weren’t produced by VW as passenger vehicles.
They were converted *after production* by Westfalia. Westfalia doesn’t have a WMI and isn’t considered a manufacturer.
This is the kind of nitpicking that I come here for!
What about all the convertible conversions? You’d never say those don’t count and yet there are countless manufacturers who’ve sold convertibles converted by third parties who weren’t manufacturers and may have even stuck on another nameplate like Westfalia did.
Pedantry! 🙂 Your move (I’m kidding, it’s not a contest and you made an excellent point – I’m just funnin’).
I’d say if they were at least approved and distributed by the OEM with a factory warranty, they count. Sometimes the production volumes are just too low for a larger manufacturer to convert the line(s) to run. Those I think are pretty easy to accept (like Camaro convertibles contracted out to ASC). To me, the conversions that were offered through dealerships, but didn’t necessarily work with the OEM other than maybe getting approval don’t count.
Oh, yes! I wasn’t going to comment about because I thought LT campervans were all done by aftermarket builders who bought chassis and then sold under their own marques. However, I discovered that Westfalia LTs were commissioned by Volkswagen, sold in VW dealerships with VW vins and registered as Volkswagens.
(this is a lovely place to start your rabbit hole into VW LT conversions)
I think the splittiest of hairs (or the hairiest of splits? IDK) is ‘Were Westy LT Campers sold in regular VW dealerships or only in VW Commercial dealerships? Today, the VW California XL is sold direct to consumers, but only in VW Commercial dealerships, so I would say ‘does not count’. However, I can’t find any information on if this was true for the LT!
Don’t forget, the LT was sold as an RV as well. That makes it passenger-ish https://westfalialt.info/index.html
I don’t think fully badge engineered models really count if they rolled off of the assembly line of another manufacturer and were basically wholesale purchases without major changes. There are kinda 4 major categories I can think of for applying to this conversation and a couple *caveats to note.
Wholesale/External Badge Engineered: originally designed by one manufacturer and then used by a separate manufacturer. Typically these models are meant to give the manufacturer introduction into a market they currently don’t have models in. This can be as simple as literal rebadging to major design differences and powertrains. Used to be fairly common, but is rare in the USDM now. Ex: 1G Honda Passport; Acura SLX; Fiat 124 Spider (Fiata); Toyota Supra MkV
Conglomerate/Internal Badge Engineering: Manufacturing brands are wholly owned as a conglomeration or ownership is >50% by one meaning they have override control. Ex: GM, VAG, Stellantis
Joint Ventures: Two (or more) manufacturers share investment into a stand alone production line/facility/technology to expand portfolios. They are still competing against one another, but are sharing expenses to minimize losses or exposure. Ex: NUMMI products from Toyota/GM; Honda/GM Ultium EVs; DSM
Shared Investment: Separate manufacturers are partially owned by one another in some way and create models that fully share architecture and (commonly) powertrains, but typically have as much bodywork distinction as possible based on segment they are in. These manufacturers still compete with one another, but understand they have some differential in each market and typically don’t overlap in more than 1 market with the shared models. More models are shared with a higher percentage of investment/ownership, but always less than 50%. Ex: Saab 9-2X; Ford/Mazda in the 90s/00s; BRZ/FRS/86/GR86 models
*Forced Partnership: Country specific requirements for externally owned manufacturers to do business in a given market. China requiring a 50% shared partnership with a Chinese business is the biggest example; Brazil in the 60s-90s(?) as well.
*Purchased rights: A manufacturer purchased the design for the purpose of reproduction or continuing manufacturing. Ex. Kia Elan
What about the Porsche 924? A VW built, VW powered passenger vehicle that VW originally planned as selling as a VW and a Porsche?
No, no it doesn’t count. None of these are true VW passenger cars designed and built from the ground up by VW. That’s is and that’s all. You can go back to the Tail Light and Blinker Fluid Bar now.
Surely somewhere there’s a Phaeton out there with a broken front driveshaft.
I never realised the Phaeton was AWD, but I’m not surprised.
By the same measure, there’s probably a Golf R somewhere, that someone’s converted to be RWD only.
Don’t forget the B5 Passat, which was also available with all wheel drive, and a longitudinally placed engine.
The first Amarok pickup (the one that is a VW, not a rebadged Ford) was available in RWD, in crew cab form it’s certainly doing car-plus duties.
“This was a product of Volkswagen Argentina after Chrysler sold their Argentinian works to VW in 1980, and the VW 1500 came out in 1990 to 1991. It’s a front engine/rear drive car, no question, but is it really a VW?”
After 10 years of 100% ownership, Hell yeah that counts!
This has me thinking, since all manufacturers have to meet the same safety standards, why can’t we have a standard “body in white” passenger safety cell? Preferably carbon fiber, that would exceed all current requirements, and have a massive economy of scale. It could be so thoroughly tested that anyone using it, wouldn’t need to do individual testing. This could bring down cost, make everyone safer, and promote more standardized components. The farther a manufacturer deviates from idealized parameters for extensions and substructures, the more testing of those components.
The South American 1500 doesn’t count IMO since it shares no parts with any real VW and was still a Chrysler/Hillman.
The 924 would’ve been the only VW to end the ambiguity for good with an answer of yes, though it was to be sold as an Audi over here.
Curious as to why 1980 as the front engine transverse drive for vw. The golf has been around since 1974.
1980 is mentioned as the time around which FWD became the dominant layout in carmaking, not for VW specifically. I’d say that’s about right. If I had to match a layout to a decade, the 70s would be RWD and the 80s would be FWD; it’s probably not very off the mark to go with the halfway point as the moment when FWD took over.
The Amarok is another truck, this time a rebadged Ford Ranger.
But produced by VW commercial vehicles
the new one is a Ranger, but VW did make their own trucks before (between the Taro and Ranger rebadge)
We don’t need no stinking rebadges! The LT? Only if we count all VW vehicles and not just passenger cars.
Assuming VW of Argentina was part of Volkswagen AG and not a separate company using the VW trade dress under license, I’d say it counts.