Date:         Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:37:59 -0800
Reply-To:     mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         mark drillock <drillock@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: engine converstion
Comments: To: Michel Bertin <mibertin@NBNET.NB.CA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I'm sure you will get people stating that the auto tranny is more
reliable but I just don't see it. Tons of people have problems with the
auto. Most of the vans I see for sale now with autos have rebuilts. The
manual trannys have problems too and many of them are rebuilts now also.

The auto people will claim that they are better if they get proper
maintenance. Maybe so but fat chance of that. When the autos get
repaired they seem to have problems again fairly soon where as the
manuals tend to go much longer on a rebuild. Again the auto people will
likely say that if the job was done right they will last. Maybe so, but
fat chance again I say.

There are numerous anecdotal examples of long life for both types.

Mark

Michel Bertin wrote:
>
> Talking about unreliable stock engines and transmission I am looking at all possibilities for engine conversion at the present and have an automatic tranny should I be worry about the transmission also?
>
> Is there known major problems with these tranny?
>
> Is the manual tranny better or more reliable than the auto. tranny?
>