Date:         Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:23:23 -0600
Reply-To:     Chris Stann <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Chris Stann <ChrisS@INFORMS.COM>
Subject:      Re: Auto vs manual engine wear
Comments: To: Steve Johnson <stevej@WB32TV.COM>
In-Reply-To:  <01C1A58F.A6AC4A60.stevej@wb32tv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Steve,

The only drawback of the automatic I can think of at the moment would be the
number of gears.  This might cause the engine to operate at unnecessarily
low RPM at times causing 'lugging'.  But I've never driven an automatic
Vanagon, only an automatic Squareback.

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
Of Steve Johnson
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 1:02 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Auto vs manual engine wear


I was wondering if an automatic transmission is easier on an engine than a
manual tranny?
I am new to automatics as this is my first, but, I notice the rpms stay much
more stable
than if I was doing the shifting with a manual transmission.
My thinking is that the torque converter absorbs some of the shock between
the wheels and the crank.
It seems altogehter "smoother" than a manual tranny.
Any real life experience from rebiulders appreciated.

Steve Johnson
' 91 Carat