 Kaefer 1303 - Test
Yes, this time not the more powerful S version, but the 1303 from model year 1973 with a 1.3L engine with 32 kW (44 HP) at a price of DM 6,690, DM 200 cheaper than with 1.6 liters and 37 kW (50 HP). Then there was the
eye-catching yellow and black 'racer' in a limited edition for DM 7,650 from the beginning of 1973.
How did people deal with this at a time when the VW Beetle had long been considered obsolete? What were the particular positive and negative aspects of the reviews? After all, it had lasted a long time. Would Ferdinand
Porsche have believed it would survive such a long life?
Yes, it looked like it had been blown up with compressed air. The last thing it got was the outward-curving windshield, due to the new American regulations requiring a minimum distance between the head and the
windshield. You could have thought that the interior size would now be on a par with the competition.
And yet, it still had running boards, which was completely unusual even when it was first launched. This made the interior narrow. And it was also quite careless with its length because otherwise the bumpers simply
couldn't be integrated into the body. The result: little legroom for those sitting in the back.
The same goes for performance. The VW Beetle was also quite uninhibited with its displacement, regardless of whether you choose the 1.3 liter or the 1.6 liter version. The competition had long since left the mark in terms
of liter performance in kW/liter. It's no wonder that consumption could not be reduced, especially since it also ran on regular gasoline.
The price advantage was not adequate for the higher consumption. Others easily got by with 1.5 L/100km less. And of course the performance was no longer sufficient. A test report pointed out that the 1300 did not even
reach the recommended motorway speed at 125 km/h.
To mention something positive, we should talk about the chassis. It received its decisive boost with the introduction of the 1302 in 1970. For the time, you could call it a relatively comfortable sports car chassis, completely
without pitfalls, which is remarkable for a rear-engined car.
It was quite complex and, as far as the steering was concerned, it was also designed to save space. One wondered how it fit into the financing. In addition, there were optional 175 tires, which today are considered rather
'narrow-chested', but at the time were two sizes larger than normal.
The steering was perceived as precise and direct, sufficiently smooth despite the lack of reinforcement. The 1303 was expected to be capable of relatively high speeds in curves, but somewhat surprisingly it understeered
rather than oversteered at the limit, which is what one would have expected given the high weight at the rear.
As if they wanted to prepare customers for the front-wheel drive successor. In contrast to this, the rear-wheel drive, the load on which increased with steeper gradients, which meant that there was now hardly any need to
worry in winter, the larger wheel diameter as an additional plus point.
The only thing that was perceived as particularly annoying was the front drum brake. If the car was outside in wind and weather, you could bet that the brakes would pull askew at the first step on the pedal. The disc brake,
which has long been part of the range, would have been an advantage. The drum brake at the rear would also have been perfect for the handbrake.
In contrast to the space for passengers, the space for luggage had increased. Overall, it would have been quite competitive, had it not been for the split in two and the sometimes poor accessibility. You could bet on why the
Beetle was still selling. Two points: quality of workmanship and service.
| 
