Date:         Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:19:31 -0700
Reply-To:     Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Daniel Schmitz <djs@gene.com>
Organization: Genentech, Inc.
Subject:      A general transmission question...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

For the elder statesmen, intellectually endowed, or anyone who has the
411 on this topic:

How come (and why is it) that the water-cooled vans have apparently
weaker, trouble-prone transmissions compared with the earlier air-cooled
vans and late model buses? One would think that an engine that puts out
at least 20% more hp and torque than its predecessor would be mated to a
transmission that could handle it. I understand that the earlier
transmissions from late buses and early vanagons are quite robust. My
'82 Adventurewagen has never had a trans problem, and I think it has
over 150k on it. All the posts to this list concerning trans problems
relate to the wbx trans, not the earlier one.

Can that trans be used in the later vans? Since the wbx is based on the
old 1600cc Type 1 engine case, and earlier buses used that engine, would
they bolt up? Are gear ratios the issue?

Maybe my question is more as to why VW changed the design of the trans,
and in the course of doing so, made it less robust and more prone to
breaking.

What gives?