Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:29:18 -0500
Reply-To:     Pat Dooley <pdooley@GTE.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Pat Dooley <pdooley@GTE.NET>
Subject:      Re: Manual or Automatic? Which is the One True Tranny...
Comments: To: OsbornSmyth@GATEWAY.NET
In-Reply-To:  <87.33ac0e6.274d1b49@gateway.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The auto tranny with TQ in my 85 Vanagon was over 200 lbs.  A heavy beast.
The 4spd manual in there now is very manageable.  I didn't weigh it, but
would guess around 70 lbs.
Our manual trans rebuilders that ship UPS can offer some info on that.

The general consensus on the Vanagon list is the auto is the better choice.
They seem to be more robust than the manuals, they do not use more fuel nor
rob much hp, though they still suck energy by their basic design principle:
shearing ATF.

FWIW, every car I have ever owned with an automatic has been a
disappointment.  I have fallen victim to sluggish shifting performance, bad
gas mileage and mechanical failures.  My Data points include Audi and VW
autos of the I5 nature, i.e. 5000 turbo and NA Quantum 5 cyl.

HTH, PSD.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
> Of Robert Osborn
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 7:51 AM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Manual or Automatic? Which is the One True Tranny...
>
>
>    Just a survey.  Can anyone offer evidence of performance/torque
> differences between the manual and the automatic?  I have had a
> manual 90 gl
> for two years,  and have been thinking about purchasing a 91
> Carat MV,  which
> is an automatic.  Are there some torque advantages/disadvantages to the
> automatic?  Is there a significant weight diffenence between the
> manual and
> automatic transmissions?
>
>
>    Thanks for your observations.
>
>
>
>    Rob 90 Gl 2.1
>