Date:         Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:58:28 -0800
Reply-To:     Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon mailing list <Vanagon@Gerry.SDSC.EDU>
From:         Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: AT v.s. Manual
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hey, speed demons:

Remember me whining about my GEO having no power? This is true- when
it's warm and running well, the motor (a new one with 45K on it) still
lugs on the slightest grade, and a jack-rabbit street start is a bit
much to ask for. Off the line, my '84 Vgon automatic feels more manly.

Finally, Vanagon owners have something to pick on, speed-wise. While
we're talking about drag-racing Vanagons, why be half-@ssed? Let's
drag-race some barndoors!!! Or what about a time trial? Oooooooooh...

Maybe that .2 liter difference in Wasserboxers makes a difference.
I've been babying Gus, but all this talk about 80mph reminds me that I
never take mine over 65, unless I'm behind a big rig. Comments?

Watch out for the cops and bring a fuzzbuster.

Speed on,

Sam

"Just as original as the original=just as many ideas appropriated from
VW as the first time"



---JordanVw@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-12-02 13:41:35 EST,
vwmaster@VOLKS-MOTORSPORTS.COM
> writes:
>
> <<  With all the Slipping Autos being talked about  >>
>
> FWIW, the manual transmissions in watercooled Vanagons have always
been more
> trouble prone than the Automatics...i've only ever heard of a
handful of
> Autotranny failures - usually because of extreme mileage (over 200k)
or
> operator neglect....
>
> i'd pick an auto over a manual Vanagon anyday... the hassles are
less.....
> if i want to go 100mph, I'll drive my other car...   ;<P*
>
> chris
> p.s. - the above is exactly the opposite for the '73-'79
buses...those AT's
> were junk IMO )
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com