WillTier@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 97-10-13 21:45:36 EDT, you write:
>
> << All these statements being bandied about in regards to the
> "reliabilty" of a type of transmission are irrelevant. I have
> blown
> up far more manual transmissions than autos. I have rebuilt
> both
> types more times than I care to recall. The driver of the
> vehicle is
> the biggest factor in the life of a transmission. Chrysler's
> automatics seem to live under my foot. Their stick's don't. As
> to
> brand x's none of their trans survive my foot. Someone said
> something
> about how a stick could survive running two quarts low, better
> than an
> auto could. I doubt it. A stick's lube capacity is close to
> two
> quarts, four pints. An auto has closer to 14 quarts. So the
> stick is
> dry, or virtually so, and the auto isn't. In any event neither
> case
> is a fault of the trans but rather the loose nut behind the
> wheel. In
> regards to towing don't exceed the manufacturers limits. Yes
> there is
> a fudge factor or safety margin but do you know what it is? In
> days
> past everything, at least at CC, was built with a large "safety
> margin" no longer, so follow the recommendations.
>
> Somehow the reliability of my mailer did not get your message
> and this is the first I've seen of it.
First of all as much as I hate to admit it the GM turbo 400 and Ford C6
are very rugged transmissions (for automatics)
Your comment that the reliability is controlled by the driver is true,
no transmission can last indefinitly while being abused, automatic or
standard. You then state the best advise is to stay within the
manufacturers recommendations, again true and that is why the standards
are almost always rated to tow more.
KW
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT