

| Subject: | Re: AT v.s. Manual |
| From: | Sam Scholten |
| Date: | Wed, 3 Dec 1997 15:58:28 -0800 |
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
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »