> >On manual trannies not the diff is the weakest point,
> >but the gears. Since this problem is non-existent in
> >automatics, their only problem MAY be the diff.
>
> Oh, that's not true. SA engineers found that at high
> rpm on the European tranny will melt down the fourth
> and fifth gear. That's why they modified that box.

That�s want I wanted to express. The manual trannies first defective parts
are the gears, NOT the diff.
Since the vanagon automatics have no problem with its gears, they MAY only
have problems with its diff. MAYBE not, what means that they would be
perfect for conversions.

> >Summary: In my opinion an automatic Vanagon can stand
> >higher power conversions than a manual.
>
> I learned that I have to agree on this. You're right.
> But there is a problem to find the adapter to mount
> the automatic to the crank case.

The diff housing of the vanagon automatic mounts onto every adapter plate
made for the boxer tranny. The rest of the automatic tranny is the same as
on Audis.

(Mal auf Deutsch: Das Differential-Geh�use beim Bus hat doch das
Boxer-Flansch-Muster, der Rest des Automatic-Getriebes, also Schieberkasten,
Planeten-Dings usw. sind gleich den entsprechenden Audi-Teilen. Also
entspricht das ganze quasi einem r�ckw�rts drehenden Audi-Getriebe. Wenn bei
der Automatik also keine Gangr�der schlappmachen, w�re vielleicht nur noch
das Automatik-Diff des Bus ein Schwachpunkt. Wenn nicht, w�re ein Automatik
perfekt f�r Umbauten, da es genauso viel aush�lt wie im Audi, weil die
Nicht-Diff-Teile ja auch im Audi das Drehmoment aushalten...Is�schon
schlecht zu erkl�ren...Auf den Microfilem wird�s klar: Der "hintere Teil"
beider Getriebe ist gleich, nur das Diff-geh�use ist speziell f�r den Bus,
siehe Bildtafel 45-00 beim Bus und 62-00 beim Audi 100 aus den 80ern).

Raimund