Re: Auto transmissions

[hsapir <hsapir@multiverse.com>]

just seeing the words for & renault in the same screen makes me want to puke

Aleksander Mierzwa wrote:

> I wouldn't agree that Audi slushboxes are "so unreliable". They are
> indeed not the most reliable ones, but are _much_ more reliable than eg.
> ones found on V6 Ford Taurus or 3-speed Renault units. Audis _need_ to
> be maintained well in order to be reliable - that's the cost of owning a
> high-performance, high-technology vehicle. Mind you - according to
> transmission shops the number one cause of slushbox failures is
> overheating and resulting degradation of fluid. Audis, which are fast
> and powerful machines are particularly vulnerable to this. Frequent
> fluid changes (_much_ more frequent than the maintenance booklet says)
> should prevent the slushbox from breaking too soon.
>
> Aleksander Mierzwa
> Warsaw, Poland
> mailto:alex@matrix.com.pl
> 87 Audi 5000CS turbo (mine)
> 88 Renault Medallion wagon (mom's)
> 91 mountain bike (just in case both cars broke at the same time :-)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David M Sugerman [SMTP:dsugerma@runet.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, January 19, 1998 4:39 PM
> > To:   quattro@coimbra.ans.net
> > Subject:      Auto transmissions
> >
> >   I was hoping someone could tell me why Audi autoboxes are so
> > unreliable. I'm planning a move to a major metropolitan area this
> > summer,
> > and would really like to have a quattro, and a car with auto trans.
> > Why
> > can't audi make a good car with both of these options that won't leave
> > me
> > in fear of having to spend $5k on the fu*k%@g gearbox? Maybe they can,
> >
> > are the new ones (tiptronics) built any better? I sure hope so, or
> > else,
> > well, I'll hold off on that statement for now.
> >
> >  David S  '89 80q 5sp 133k *Possibly for sale in the spring*
> >           '86 Saab 900 5sp 195k original gearbox, believe it or not.