Date:         Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:29:52 -0400
Reply-To:     mark keller <kelphoto@BRIGHT.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon mailing list <Vanagon@Gerry.SDSC.EDU>
From:         mark keller <kelphoto@BRIGHT.NET>
Subject:      Re: ISO '90 or '91 Carat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:47:26 -0400
>To:Chris & Aimee <uzzi@AIMNET.COM>
>From:kelphoto@bright.net (mark keller)
>Subject:Re: ISO '90 or '91 Carat
>
>Well I have an auto Carat in T red so I guess I can comment.
>
>(3) First the Auto Performs! Aside from some techie  reasons, real world
>the auto is faster than the f speed.  Less to do also.  Mine is a flyer,
>in Van be gone circles.  I feel the auto is much more saving on the
>engine, since the accerlation slippage occurs in the  xsmn.
>
>When I take off I let the engine reach 3000 RPM or so and just hold it
>there with throttle adjustment.  The van will go from about 25 mph to
>50mph, with the RPM varying little. A f speed will obivioulsle need to go
>up  and down as gears are selected. My opinion is that this steady RPM is
>less wearing, than constant RPM fluctuations.
>
>The auto workload is lower.  This helps in backing up and other complex
>division of attention tasks during driving. So I feel it's somewhat safer
>in this minor aspect.
>
>Mine has a slight oil seepage from it, other than that it seems to perform
>flawlessly in the 6k Iv'e put on it, 125K now showing.
>
>My only adjustment in driving it seems to be a twofold interplay between
>the throttle delay and engine response, almost a second, and the tendency
>of the xsmn to shift into second and third at to low and RPM when the
>throttle/gas pedal is not depressed at least half way or more, else the
>shift timing seems good.
>
>Master that delay thing and it drives pretty good.
>
>Mark Keller
>91 Carat WlE
>Lazarus
>
>
>>(1) What sets apart the Carat from the Vanagon GL?
>>(2) What was the marketing ploy in coming out with the Carat?
>>(3) How does the 3sp auto-tranny perform (wife MUST have an automatic!)
>>(4) Anything else I should know?
>>
>