Automatic Gearbox

[Guest]

Just read this......

"This is the cars Achilles heel, Mine has failed twice since I've had the car. Looking at other reviews it is a very common problem. According to the gearbox specialist that repaired the car on each occasion there is a quite serious design fault; the gearbox input shaft is too short and does not engage fully with the torque converter, it only goes in half way, hence the all to regular failure."

.....I know there are other threads and posts on here about the AT, but none of them have mentioned anything like this. Has anyone heard of this before?

 

[godzilla]

That is the first time i have heard anything about an input shaft problem. The wave spring in the auto is the most common part to fail.

 

[king_panther]

I bought the white Legnum is October 2007 & the gearbox seized after 4 days ownership.
Replaced it, installed a trans cooler, & it ran fine ever since?

Dimi put a link up somewhere for Hills Motorsport who can toughen & strengthen our auto boxes if you're worried about them.
MEEK also have a contact who can rebuild boxes & strengthen them. This guy also has a Monte Carlo edtion E39a VR4.

 

[Guest]

I have read this Trevor, that's why I found this review interesting and thought I would ask others. The review was from an English bloke who had his AT self destruct twice on him with the same problem.

 

[Guest]

I bought the white Legnum is October 2007 & the gearbox seized after 4 days ownership.
Replaced it, installed a trans cooler, & it ran fine ever since?

Dimi put a link up somewhere for Hills Motorsport who can toughen & strengthen our auto boxes if you're worried about them.
MEEK also have a contact who can rebuild boxes & strengthen them. This guy also has a Monte Carlo edtion E39a VR4.

Ahhh... I know who MEEK's contact is... that would be Rockabilly off GalantVR4.org.au. Never thought to ask him... Might have to now =P

 

[Guest]

I've always believed an automatic transmission was the Achilles heel of any car. If you choose to buy an auto anything then you must accept that there could be a sudden hefty bill at some stage during its life.

 

[bradc]

The link to the UK site didn't work for me. However that review is probably for the V6-24 which is a FWD n/a 2.5 V6 with the F4A42 gearbox. Those gearboxes explode their input shafts and torque converters all the time.

 

[Hotwire]

I've always believed an automatic transmission was the Achilles heel of any car. If you choose to buy an auto anything then you must accept that there could be a sudden hefty bill at some stage during its life.

Sorry but this post is just stupid. That's like saying buying a manual is the achillies heel as at some point you'll have a hefty bill for a new clutch.

With the VR4, (or many japanese cars) with a manual you'll be up for a good clutch ($1k for decent clutch) + labour for box out/ box in. With an auto, often it means exactly the same, parts ($0.5 to 1k) plus labour for box out/box in. Factoring in rebuild time for the auto, maybe $500 worse off.

Bullshit argument.

 

[ygoslo]

Despite all the apparent political incorrectness of saying that the autos in these cars are rubbish, the autos in these cars are rubbish. There have been so many failures it is just not funny.

And the argument that manuals are just as bad because you have to replace clutches is, to coin a phrase, "bullshit". If you spend $1k on a clutch (which is top dollar), you have an extremely strong, MODIFIED component that is a lot better than stock and will IMPROVE the car. If you rebuild an auto you have the same thing as what you started with, albeit not broken. So even if those 2 jobs cost the same, which they don't, the manual is still ahead.

My problem with autos extends beyond the durability argument, but even if you're only looking at durability and not driving enjoyment, the robustness of the manual gearbox when contrasted with the fragility of the auto makes transmission choice in a VR4 a complete no-brainer as far as I can see.

 

[Guest]

Sorry but this post is just stupid. That's like saying buying a manual is the achillies heel as at some point you'll have a hefty bill for a new clutch.

With the VR4, (or many japanese cars) with a manual you'll be up for a good clutch ($1k for decent clutch) + labour for box out/ box in. With an auto, often it means exactly the same, parts ($0.5 to 1k) plus labour for box out/box in. Factoring in rebuild time for the auto, maybe $500 worse off.

Bullshit argument.

I don't think there is any argument here, it's a fact that autos by their very complex nature are more likely to have problems than manuals and be more costly to fix.

A manual will put up with a lot more punishment for a lot longer and gradually fail over time, giving you plenty of notice to start saving some cash. More often than not, the box itself will be fine and clutches can be bought quite cheaply and easily installed in a weekend. I recently replaced a Subaru Liberty clutch with an Exedy kit for under $400. Granted, it was nothing fancy but each to their own.

An auto failure, even if you pull the box out yourself, will most likely require the expertise of someone specialised in transmission rebuilds which is costly in its own right. However when the time comes I may roll up my sleeves and give it a shot, it's good to learn new things as I've only ever rebuilt manual transmissions before.

Autos can be finicky beasts at the best of times. But you are correct to point out that when purchasing a manual the clutch will probably need replacing sometime too. You personally may have had better luck than me, but every auto I've ever driven has turned out to be a costly PITA.

FWIW, I own an automatic Legnum and I bought it knowing full well the unreliability issues of these transmissions, the expense and inconvenience they can incur and the special treatment they require for longevity. My second car is a manual with over 200,000kms on it and has had the clutch replaced about 5 years back with a heavy-duty Exedy kit at a cost of around $300. It also only needs the fluid replacing every 90,000kms, a much longer interval than I'd ever dare with an auto.

 

[Guest]

Penn and Teller should do a show on auto gearboxes...

 

[snickells]

Despite all the apparent political incorrectness of saying that the autos in these cars are rubbish, the autos in these cars are rubbish. There have been so many failures it is just not funny.

Tim, why do you think it's wrong to say the auto boxes are crap? I've never seen anything on here ever telling or expecting people to tow some line that they're the best thing since sliced bread. And remember, I'm one of the poor bastards who had to pay a good 3k to fix one.

 

[mookers]

It's not politically incorrect to say auto boxes are crap. It is unkind, however, to suggest that people who don't drive manuals made a universally poor choice - some of Tim's previous posts were leaning that way.

 

[Guest]

Cars in general can be money pits, let's leave it at that.

 

[Scottie]

Everyone knows the Autos are shit..

Good box tho...

 

[godzilla]

And the argument that manuals are just as bad because you have to replace clutches is, to coin a phrase, "bullshit". If you spend $1k on a clutch (which is top dollar), you have an extremely strong, MODIFIED component that is a lot better than stock and will IMPROVE the car. If you rebuild an auto you have the same thing as what you started with, albeit not broken. So even if those 2 jobs cost the same, which they don't, the manual is still ahead.

But when 2 VR4's are taken to a workshop, one an auto and one a manual, both are having "around" 2-3 k spent on one another, the auto is having a rebuild with stronger internals, the other is having a "heavy duty" clutch installed, would it be fair to say that BOTH cars are having modifications taken to "improve" the car?

Apparently, once you rebuild an auto with parts to replace the fragile OEM parts, they are supposed to be bulletproof. So failing regular 40k flushes, you do not need to worry about them any more.

Now i am of the understanding, even with a heavy duty clutch, they will still need to be replaced at another stage as they are "technically" a serviceable part. Is this correct? If so, say they need to be replaced every 50k, depending on the amount of 7k launches (Josh lol), you would in say 100k, be spending more on servicing your gearbox than you would an auto.

I wish to not bag auto's, as i own one, but either way i would be broke if i had to pay someone to upgrade and replace my clutch and or pay someone to repair and upgrade my tranny.

 

[king_panther]

Ahhh... I know who MEEK's contact is... that would be Rockabilly off GalantVR4.org.au. Never thought to ask him... Might have to now =P

I've met him in person as Brett who used to be at MEEK was showing him my gearbox at an MCA meet. He was very proud of his Monte Carlo VR4
He was very impressed to see that our Legnums carried 5-sp INVECS II tiptronic boxes.

 

[Sydo]

So far it's the only auto I've ever enjoyed driving.

 

[happymatch]

I bought auto since my wife can not drive manual. However, if the auto box breaks and decides to empty my bank account, then i probably consider two things. 1. should i get the manual conversion done at meeks? or, 2 should i repair and strengthen my box?

well, i am willing to go what ever is cheaper i guess.

have to admit.. our car has best auto i have driven so far. i have driven and owned lot of autos before, including but not limited to, merc c180 tiptronic, a160 tiptronic, honda accord 97 with logic, 05 accord with logic II, and hyundai grandure tiptronic. Best so far.

 

[bradc]

The autos are ok to drive with, great autos but whenever I drive another members car the lack of acceleration, really long gear ratios and the delay in changing does annoy me. In saying that, when out on the open road with a pie or a drink in hand, changing down gears is a bit annoying. To be fair though, that only really happens in the ST-R, in my purple VR-4 I make over 500nm at 2750rpm and over 600nm at 3250rpm, so I don't really need to change down very often!