Re: V-8 Q, what am I missing?

[MHLIGGINS@aol.com]

<<Compared to the automatics in 5K's, the V8Q tranny is downright
bulletproof.

BCNU,

Cobram@Juno.Com>>

     To be perfectly candid about that statement, most **anything** on wheels is bulletproof compared to the 
three speed Audi trannie.  :-)   That's why I prefer to 
stick with the manual trannies on the older cars.
     Now, let me turn that around and get some 
information. It has been a point on the list, several times, that the 5 speed V-8s are much more desirable 
than the automatic cars. Based on reliability. That also matches up with reports from other sources 
(such as dealerships in Nashville, TN and Denver, CO). Why is that? The reports are that the auto trannies 
do not hold up and are more expensive to repair than 
even the 3-speed slushbox. You are reporting 
otherwise. Are people confusing the AT V-8 with the
slushboxes, similar to the way people think that the 
quats were also included in the 60 minutes report? Or,
are there some  V-8 ATs  (maybe first or second year 
cars) that are really that bad and the rest of them get 
painted with the same brush.
     Your comment runs completely counter to what
I've run across from multiple sources during the past 
four years. If there's something hidden somewhere I'd
like to know. I liked every one of the five V-8s that I
test drove, and each time I tried to find a way to 
justify the purchase. Each time the reports of high 
costs related to the uniqueness of the engine and the 
unreliability of the automatic transmission have caused
me to skip the car.
     I'd like to know if you're reporting based on one car
only or if this is typical. 'Cause if what you're telling me
about the V-8s is typical I'm gonna be highly pissed that
I let all of those V-8s get away.

     Later.
     --ml