Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:16:09 -0700
Reply-To: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Don Hanson <dhanson928@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Automatic transmission, WTF?
In-Reply-To: <2f18aa9f0908260837r69767036k7a6325268e188c8e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
That's a good answer to the original question..
One of the trade-offs you must deal with to have the convenience of an
auto shift Vanagon is that in the mountains or on some more technical
driving surfaces you will be stuck with it's designed-in shifting
parameters. You will trade away the ability to anticipate an upcoming
terrain change and to modulate how the power is applied (the clutch) to the
wheels. However, if most of the driving you do is low angle freeway and
city traffic..it's a worthwhile trade off, to some.
With my inline four 1.8 liiter (only slightly more powerful than a WBX
with the power coming at a much higher rpm range) I'd probably hate a VW
auto tranny. I can see the Bostig/Zetec motor not working too well with one
either.
Someone mentioned driving with the Big Rigs uphill. I imagine that a
Vanagon with a real Gear-jammer type multi-gear transmission, like the big
tractor trailer rigs all have would be more easily kept at speed...We
probably have a similar HP/Torque to Weight ratio as a loaded semi and they
need every gear they have to keep on truckin up those passes...Imagine a
semi with only a 3 speed auto tranny...
Don Hanson
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:37 AM, VW Doka <vw.doka@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marc,
>
> You're just kinda stuck with what it is... a vehicle that was
> originally designed haul cargo around the city.
>
> First and foremost, VW sold them as work vehicles. Sure, in the USA,
> we got the "upgraded" passenger models and campers, but they were
> still based on the utilitarian Transporter. Think about it, the
> gearing (both auto and manual) is really well adapted to city
> driving... lots of low-end torque. It's only on the highway where we
> have to wind them out just to keep up.
>
> It is what is...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Marc Perdue<mcperdue@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know what ACW is. I have an '87 Westfalia, 2.1 L, and was
> > under the impression I have a three-speed automatic. Is that not the
> > case?
> >
> > Regarding the third paragraph, it feels condescending to say that
> > something is "obviously designed" a particular way. There isn't
> > anything inherently obvious in this to most people. If transmission
> > design were obvious to me, I don't think I'd be asking the question I
> > asked.
> >
> > Thanks for trying to answer my question though.
> > Marc
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Mike S<mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:
> >> At 09:43 AM 8/26/2009, Marc Perdue wrote...
> >>
> >>> So, who the heck designs an automatic transmission that, when the
> >>> pedal is to the floor, kicks down to 2nd at 45 and back to 3rd at
> >>> 55?!?
> >>
> >> On a "ACW" 4 speed tranny, 45 MPH in 3rd is about 3570 RPM. 55 MPH in
> 2nd is
> >> about 7350 RPM (way above redline).
> >>
> >> No doubt you meant to say it's bouncing between 3rd and 4th. 45MPH in
> 4th is
> >> about 2500 RPM. 55 MPH in 3rd is about 4400 RPM.
> >>
> >> The transmission is obviously designed to keep the engine running at the
> >> high (more powerful) end of its "comfort zone" (the green area of the
> tach
> >> between 2K and 4K RPM) under full throttle.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
|