1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174 
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE
Page 173
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LKSWAGEN LT35E HIGH ROOF U30 DIESEL PANEL VAN.
LGINALLY TESTED: 17/1/87.
3INE: VW 6 cylinder ID! 100.5hp. kRBOX: VW 5-speed.
2K AXLE RATIO: 4.08:1.
TED GVW: 3500kg.
ERALL RESULTS: 20.58mpg/40.3mph. [GINAL TEST REPORT PLUS POINTS: ivalled load volume and performance/good leration/body and suspension well designed/ body roll/excellent handling/good interior space/good body finish.
LGINAL TEST REPORT MINUS NTS: Brakes snatch when empty/steering ry at low speeds/complex heating and Bating controls/noisy at 60mph/poor fuel .umption (compared to Ransit)/poor ion in corners/rather average payload/no iounter/sliding door prone to corrosion/ hy gearchange/poor engine access.
rator 1 has eight LT35E's on mainly-local, en food distribution.
rator 2 is an owner driver under contract to a nationwide express parcel carrier and travels on the continent considerably.
Operator 3 is a market stall holder and has one vehicle.
All three operators commented on the reliability of the VW. All had purchased LT's before and would continue to do so mainly for the volume the vehicle provided. Operator 2 had an engine blow at 40,000 miles and this was replaced in three days with no quibble whatsoever'.
All commented on the heavy steering, especially Operator 1 who said that his vehicles were affected by the freezer units mounted on the front of the body. They felt that power steering should be standard, and not an expensive 1789 option. Operator 2 also reckoned that the turbo was no real value as, on his vehicle, it only came in at 2,500rpm and that the fuel consumption was only 18-19mpg This was considerably less than his previous nonturbo LT, and he felt that the extra performance did not warrant the increase in fuel consumption. Operator 1 was achieving an average 19-20mpg even with his stop-start operation. Operator 3 did not keep accurate records but stated that it was 'good on fuel'. His main reason for buying the LT was the reliability and load space. The LT was the only one that could comfortably take his market stall, stock and other items with ease. He also felt that the turbo did not make much difference to performance.
Operator 1 commented that every LT he purchased gave 'exactly the same performance and service to any other one. They are so consistent, it is frightening sometimes'. Apart from regular servicing, all three operators agreed that they did not spend money on the vehicle at all.
Operators 2 and 3 both mentioned that they appreciated the fact that the LT had a factoryfitted steel bulkhead and considered this to be an important safety feature. They also mentioned VW must be 'making a bomb on options' and felt that many optional items, such as an intermittent wipe, should be standard. Noise was not thought to be a problem and the cabs seemed to wear quite well. The only common problem was restricted to the sills which were said to be prone to rust.