Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1998 10:25:37 EDT
Reply-To:     JordanVw@AOL.COM
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         JordanVw@AOL.COM
Subject:      Re: auto vs. manual
Comments: To: mgajewski@MANVILLERUBBER.COM, Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

In a message dated 98-09-10 09:35:29 EDT, mgajewski@MANVILLERUBBER.COM writes:

<< Also, I always thought manual tranny's were much simpler and therefore
 less trouble prone.  I mean, no funky valve plates and little balls
 moving around and all that junk.  Auto's are more reliable? I still find
 that hard to believe...what gives?
 Mark
  >>


the watercooled Vanagon manual transmissions are a poor design, and have a
tendency to develop a crack between 3rd and 4th gear on the "slider
hub"...anyway, this usually leads to problems with 3rd gear, and the only way
to fix is to rebuild or replace ($$)

the watercooled Vanagon automatics are based on the early rabbit/jetta
transmission and have no more problems than any other auto trans out on the
market.

lack of performance man. vs auto. is very minimal. ive driven both.

odds are, if you own a 4spd Vanagon, you will experience transmission failure,
long before someone with a automatic Vanagon does.

i would stick with an automatic, if you want reliability.

chris