RE: Auto transmissions

[Aleksander Mierzwa <alex@matrix.com.pl>]

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.