Early 411 front differences

[Lars S]

This may have been discussed before but I just discovered on an early 411 (produced about Feb 1969) that, on both sides, the front seems to lack the reinforcement parts which the later 411 and 412 has.
I knew there were a lot of modifications done after the 1st year but this was unknown to me.

Top in each pic is a '70 411 and bottom is the '69.

/Lars S

_________________
Porsche 914 -72, Bahia Red daily driver
VW411 2-d -70, White, sold
VW412 4-d, -73, Gold Metallic, daily driver
Suzuki T500, -69, Candy Gold, sold
Suzuki K50, -77, Black, daily driver
BMW R69S -69, White, sold
Husqvarna 118cc, -47, Black, Sold

[KTPhil]

Kinda looks like the box reinforcements added to the same areas on the "shark nose" Type 3 front ends in 1970. It was part of the efforts to define crumple and stiff zones more thoughtfully, after the Nader witch hunts on the Beetle and Corvair, and impending crash standards.

Late examples:

Discussion of repair where these boxes were removed:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=728053

[raygreenwood]

Yes. The 411 and 412 were some of the first "crumple zone" cars. While the early 411 was also crumple zone.....as you note....the later cars had reinforcing to make sure it all did not crumple at one time but crumpled forward first. And now that you point it out that....I can see they probabpy incorporated it into type 3 as well. Ray

[KTPhil]

I think at one point in the late 1960s VW probably thought the Type 4 might be the only car they could sell, should the unbelted 50 mph crash standards being talked about come to pass. It was the only model with a long enough front to handle the required crush distance/time. A Motor Trend article had "secret" (not really) photos of VW crash tests and experimental cars, and the most successful were either a totally new design, or an outgrowth of the Type 4 series cars.

These were going to be our cars:

[Chris Walden]

Oh, this is funny. I had 3 type 4’s in the 80’s/90’s the last of which was a 69. I thought that the “reinforcements” had simply rotted away...as had much else...and sheet metal had been tacked over. Learn somethin new ever day.
Chris



[/vimeo]

[Lars S]

[wonkipop]

external differences on a super early 411?

was snooping doing 914 research and stumbled on a VW factory film on you tube.

had footage of this baby.
think its a real early proto 411.

figured you guys might be interested.
maybe you have seen images of the car when it was in this early form.
think the styling for the headlights is pinanfarina. not positive.
(i noticed similarities with f. piech's aborted EA 226, same sweet little headlight details too).

i think the car was very pretty at this stage.
i think they might have gone off piste when they went twin headlights?
somehow lost the "face-like" qualities that VWs had front on.

of course this could also be the aborted replacement for the type 3.
but i think it is the 411 at a real real early stage.
the film i was watching appeared to be dated around 66/67.

the oval headlight early 411s were not bad.
a sort of extension of what this one was.
but the headlight detail on this proto is super sexy.

[GArBa]

It always looked to me like Pininfarina was simply using for the 411 most of the same design cues of the almost contemporary BMC ADO17 "landcrab", the 411 oval headlight modification made the relationship less obvious but still recognizable.
_________________
cars:
'97 type 1 1600i
'14 type AA Seat Mii (sadly dead after 270.000 km)
'22 type C1 T-Cross
'23 type AC3 Hyundai I10 (VW no longer makes small cars!)
-------------------------
moped:
'82 Benelli Magnum 3v

[Pepperbilly]

[quote="Lars S"]

[raygreenwood]

[quote="Pepperbilly"]

[Lars S]

[wonkipop]

[raygreenwood]

[wonkipop]

[wonkipop]

better film still Lars S and R Greenwood.
you can see the front arms.

i had another look at film footage for fuel cap.
pretty low res.
but in one pass by i think it can be just made out behind the rear door of the 4 door. very hard to tell, but its not visible at all on front guard where it is on a 411.

makes you wonder about all the space available in the rear of the 411/412 sedans above and forward of the engine they never exploited in the packaging like they did with the type 3 with a rear trunk.

did they have ideas about a rear fuel tank in type 4s they never went ahead with? would have made the front of the cars interesting. both for packaging - suspension design -------------and handling?

[Lars S]

[Lars S]

[raygreenwood]

Look carefully at the front view picture of the yellow car.

What I have been speculating to be "control arms" of some similarly to our control arms on our 411/412....are not.

They are almost knock offs of what are on a 914....which are actually transverse A-arms....or transverse control arms. Still a strut suspension but not Macpherson strut. Shorter.

And, the basic 914 does not use coil springs. It uses a transverse torsion bar with outer links that look just like what is mounted under this car.

So.....early 914/911 front suspension?

Ray

[Lars S]

[wonkipop]

re EA266 i understand the whole front end was more or less 911-914 including the steering rack. ie symmetrical steering rack and connection to steering wheel via diagonal shaft and u joint arrangement. though that might only have been so in the first development mule design prototypes. nevertheless if you look closely at either of the prototypes that survive the front sway bar is as per 911 and 914. you can see the connection halfway along the lower A arm. the sway bar would have run through the body higher up probably just under the fuel tank. there was a lot about that version that in detail was very 914. suspect heinrich klie was very involved in the initial design. a different team did the later version - same guys that developed the 928.

the car would have had sweet handling -------up to a point. would have been a handful for the average driver once you went past the limits of grip? always looked to me like they were trying to engineer tendency to spin out of it.
see widely splayed rear wheels and exaggerated rear flared outer wheel wells.

i did read an account that noted VW test engineers were concerned with its handling in wet and low grip situations. though i have seen test footage of the mule prototype being driven in deep snow and it looked like the test driver was having real fun with it - but i guess thats not an average driver.

i understand the 3 cylinder and 4 cylinder in line laid flat engines for the VW were being co developed by piech alongside 6 and 8 cylinder boxers that would have gone in porsches. all water cooled. the VW versions were more or less a half of the porsche versions.

the project seemed to be a comprehensive re think of both brands and their platforms funded largely by VW in a sweetheart deal approved by h. nordhoff that came seriously unstuck after his death.

in contrast whatever you can see on the front of the 311 prototype in terms of suspension arms is not like anything i can think of when it comes to VWs of that era.
as an australian i can say it would not have faired well down here or in south africa with the roads we had and still have in some instances. you would have been tearing the front end out. VWs could go anywhere in australia or any road.
part of the secret was there was nothing underneath that could get seriously damaged. very hard to "sump" an aircooled VW. sumping a car being an australian reference to taking out the sump pan leading to a long walk home or finding a tree to sit under while you waited to be found.

@Lars S - that dipstick is hilarious.