For those interested in old cars.

[Kickstart]

A colleague had a DSG Audi, and was paranoid of it failing (from memory the fluid changes were regarded as critical). The gearbox survived but the control unit for it died, and this was very expensive and keyed to the car to stop him fitting a 2nd hand one. That said, VW group seem to get away with reliability like this and expensive repairs which most other brands would be absolutely panned for.

 

I like the idea of a DSG box although to be honest not driven one. I have done a fair few miles in a Selespeed Alfa 156, and while it would no doubt change gear more quickly that I can, it felt far slower as I was sitting there waiting for it to do something rather than me actually participating. Only once did it make a nasty mess of changing and that was when I had left it in auto mode on a long motorway journey, and after coming off to a roundabout I spotted a gap in the traffic and put my foot down. It tried to accelerate, decided it needed a lower gear, changed down and tried to accelerate before deciding it needed a lower gear, etc. By the time it actually got down to a gear it was happy to accelerate in I was in the middle of the roundabout with the gap having almost disappeared!

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Hobby]

52 minutes ago, MJI said:

There is also the experience of works previous bosses car, an audi, one boss hated it, the other eventually disliked it.

 

47 minutes ago, MJI said:

Also i have been spoilt by owning 3 cars with GM autos from pre Peugeot days.

 

When GM designed and made their own cars.

 

I have a similar lament to monkeysarefun.

 

Fine, I didn't like the three speed autos in my P6 and Maestro, that didn't make them a poor gearbox, it was just personal preference, just because they are "bosses" doesn't make their views any more valid than mine! I can understand your personal preference and longing for what's gone, but I try not to let that colour my views on anything new (or not so new, they've been around 20 years now), if it works and makes things easier then I'll try it.

 

It's interesting reading your's and Katy's responses as it seems neither of you have driven a car with a VAG DSG but are taking secondhand experiences to form a view of them. That's all well and good if the "sample" is large enough but not fair otherwise. I've driven them for 9 years now, around 120k miles so know them quite well. They have their foibles, as does every gearbox and I've experienced what Katy described in her last post, though I've had that issue with other auto gearboxes and even more so when I've made a mess of a gear change in a manual! However other than that odd time they've been just fine. Perhaps the old adage, "don't criticise something until you've tried it" springs to mind!

 

One key thing is what you want from your driving experience, personally these days I'm more relaxed when driving so an auto suits me just fine, if I wanted to have a race and get more "involved" then perhaps a manual may be better!

Edited December 21, 2023 by Hobby

[MJI]

I think 4 or 5 speed autos are best, i have travelled quite a bit in what was the company audi. They wanted to show a more upmarket image to clients .

 

Younger boss quite liked it, older boss found gear changes often went the wrong way. Then the weird issues started. Enough to abandon lease.

 

I thought my previous Vauxhall was a much nicer place to travel, and it was a great drive.

 

I have worked for them for over 30 years, i remember when younger boss was 11.

 

I think 4 speed autos work well due to not always need to keep changing gear.

 

GM were definitely among the better tc auto makers.

 

My current ZF one the ECU is not well programmed and is not flashable.

 

 

[MJI]

Manuals, i definitely prefer the lever to be part of the box,  and not remote, also i do not like bias springs.

 

The worst gate i have come across was i think

.1.3.5

2.4.R

 

Or

R.1.3.5

.2.4

 

Pull lever back from 1 goes straight into 4.

 

It was terrible and a very bity clutch.

 

Yet my much older rootes design was an almost perfect change.

[Kickstart]

36 minutes ago, Hobby said:

However other than that odd time they've been just fine. Perhaps the old adage, "don't criticise something until you've tried it" springs to mind!

 

 

Other than weight (a simple fact - and to be honest most modern cars are massively heavy) and reliability (not something that would show on any normal driving experience) I haven't criticised the DSG gearbox. I like the idea of a quick changing manual controlled by buttons

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Kickstart]

6 minutes ago, MJI said:

Manuals, i definitely prefer the lever to be part of the box,  and not remote, also i do not like bias springs.

 

The worst gate i have come across was i think

.1.3.5

2.4.R

 

Or

R.1.3.5

.2.4

 

Pull lever back from 1 goes straight into 4.

 

It was terrible and a very bity clutch.

 

Yet my much older rootes design was an almost perfect change.

 

Fortunately not had a drive with a gearbox like that. The Focus we have is not great now, but probably an adjustment issue and as getting to the linkage is a major job we are just living with it (it was fine until the original linkage failed).

 

We have had Alfasuds / 33s and 75s. All were slated for their gear changes and none of them did I really have issues with. The 33 I liked quite a bit as it worked well for quick gear changes. All were better than (say) the E46 BMW we had.

 

Old Mk2 Escorts had lovely gear changes. Not sure how many modern cars approach that level.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[MJI]

2 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

 

Fortunately not had a drive with a gearbox like that. The Focus we have is not great now, but probably an adjustment issue and as getting to the linkage is a major job we are just living with it (it was fine until the original linkage failed).

 

We have had Alfasuds / 33s and 75s. All were slated for their gear changes and none of them did I really have issues with. The 33 I liked quite a bit as it worked well for quick gear changes. All were better than (say) the E46 BMW we had.

 

Old Mk2 Escorts had lovely gear changes. Not sure how many modern cars approach that level.

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

Mk 3 though - terrible

 

I have driven a Mk2 a little but not enough to comment, but I expect it is similar to the Rootes box as used in Avenger and Sunbeam.

 

Recentish manuals, a 3 cylinder Vauxhall about 18 years ago, was OK but the engine felt like a faulty V6. A Porsche Boxster, not bad at all. A Transit Defender only used 2 gears as LR experience, did comment previous engine was tons better. Prefer auto for off roading.

 

But I am now at the age I want big wodges of torque and as long as quick enough happy.

 

High enough to see over hedges, reasonable handling, comfortable, airy.

 

A friend wants me to do Nurburgring, but not without proper road tyres and stage 3 remap.

 

I used to do bikes years ago, foot change was great.

[alastairq]

I have owned one or two proper automatics [old school, both 3 speed, epicyclic, with torque converters.

I have spent my entire working [driving and 'teaching' ] life using autos, semi autos, pre-selectors, autoMATED , a various manuals, ranging from 2 speeds, 3 speeds, up to, many speeds......[more than one can shake a stick at].

Not forgetting gear levers with gates, without gates, bias or no bias...to the left of my legs, to the right of my legs, left and right on the steering column, left or right of the dashboard, you name it.

Levers, switches, cheap push buttons, even reading-my-mind!  {ESP?]

Electric change, air operated change, mechanical change, wishful thinking gear change....

Not also forgetting the switches, or types of 'range change'...

I haven't ever found any gearbox type that I couldn't actually assert some form of 'manual override'....IE control manually should I have wished.

The manual ''override'' [Or getting a more appropriate gear in my own personal view?]...did indeed vary in its technique....many times over.The worst of the autos for exerting my own influence over, was to be found in certain  [but not all by any means] Leyland Olympian double deck buses...where the 'control' lever had but three positions....auto, neutral, and hold. The ''hold'' position held the gear it happened to be in at that moment.

Which gear it happened to be in at that moment was entirely potluck [Pot luck being, whatever the gearbox happened to have decided at that moment]...

The only way to encourage [or not] a gear change was to flick the damned lever out of 'auto,' into 'hold,' then back immediately into 'auto....'  

[Edit...the other way around

actually]

All that with the right hand, of course...

 

The big advantage of the [proper] automatic box was that it wouldn't let the driver make either one of the two main mistakes drivers make, when trying to control the gearbox manually [any gearbox, manually, really]!

IE, to low a gear at too high a road speed...and too high a gear at too low a road speed.

 

If I had fewer gears to play with, then something like, contemplating an overtake, for example, would take on a whole new aspect to how one drove.

Do I change down to the 'middle ' gear of a 3 speed box, and risk running out of the torque curve as the revs rose higher?

Or do I pick my moment more carefully, and stick with top gear, and rely on the build-up of torque, in order to increase my speed?

 

I did find there really was little difference in the time it took to increase speed with a 3 speed box, if staying in top gear, or downshifting to 2nd, then changing up to top once the engine was shattering my eardrums...

Regardless of whether the engine was a 3.3 litre 6 cylinder, or a 1172cc sidevalver....  {Or a SAAB 2 litre OHC!]

 

Of course, with overtaking, nothing concentrated the mind, and powers of observation, more than overtaking traffic at speed, with an 850cc Renault 4.

Perfectly possible, perfectly viable, not for the faint hearted, however.

 

Incidentally, that Renault 4 had the nicest manual gearchange I have ever come across, for ease of handling and acquiring gears....[Yup, umbrella stick stuck out of the middle of the dash board.]

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by alastairq

[APOLLO]

Back around 1970 as an apprentice with The North Western Gas Board I had just passed my driving test, and was driving my Dad's old Daimler Majestic 3.8 Auto (having learned in a Mini).

 

The boss found out I could drive, and arranged for me to take the Gas Board driving test in a Morris J van with trailer such as the one below.

 

 

What a difference, an absolute pig to drive, all ours were old and knackered, the gearbox & clutch were a nightmare, no wonder they were nicknamed "Leaping Lena's" !! - I had to back van and trailer into a parking bay etc.

 

I passed, right said the boss, be at Wigan Gas Works at 11.45 each day, my job was to collect the "Gas Works pie order" from the bakery a mile away.

 

I soon "graduated" to a Ford Escort van - Happy days.

 

Brit15

[Dunsignalling]

My 6-speed manual Yeti has what I presume is the standard gate for that.

 

R/1.3.5

    2.4.6

 

It has a (moderate) spring bias to 3/4 which I don't mind at all (though I detest strong ones), which works especially well with the common hop from 6th to 4th coming into bends or a built up area (push-don't grip-pull).

 

Depending what we've become used to before, some of us tend to fight the bias and end up in an uncomfortable muddle. I did early on, but a lighter, more "open" grip on the knob soon had me and the box in harmony. I had to remember it's not a point lever! 😉

 

What I did find a bit awkward (occasionally) was when parking or doing a 3-point turn, it sometimes felt like the lever had come out of reverse, but it hadn't fully cleared the sprung detent, and went back into reverse when I wanted first! I soon got the hang of it, and pulling a tiny bit harder eradicates the tendency.

 

Again, really just a matter of getting the feel of an unfamiliar box, and now I have, it's a pleasure to use.

 

John

 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Kickstart said:

A colleague had a DSG Audi, and was paranoid of it failing (from memory the fluid changes were regarded as critical). The gearbox survived but the control unit for it died, and this was very expensive and keyed to the car to stop him fitting a 2nd hand one. That said, VW group seem to get away with reliability like this and expensive repairs which most other brands would be absolutely panned for.

 

About 35 years ago, when VW were first really selling themselves on reliability, Dad took one of our Montegos into a local garage for some fault to be repaired, probably a wheel bearing or something.  They got through a few but as a whole those cars were a lot less trouble than their reputation would have suggested.

 

On another ramp in the garage was a Golf.  Dad asked the mechanic if he thought VWs were generally any more reliable than other marques.  The guy chuckled and replied that based on the number they'd had towed into the workshop, he couldn't see much difference.  Now that's only one person's view, but it has reinforced my own view that reliability surveys tend to reflect existing preconceptions.  If you had an unreliable BL car in the 80s you admitted it because, well, everyone knows they're unreliable, but would the person who have bought a (relatively expensive) Honda then had an expensive garage bill, gone round telling people about it?  When it came to doing a survey, would they bother, assuming their answers would be a statistically-invalid freak result?

[Kickstart]

Just now, Northmoor said:

 If you had an unreliable BL car in the 80s you admitted it because, well, everyone knows they're unreliable, but would the person who have bought a (relatively expensive) Honda then had an expensive garage bill, gone round telling people about it?  When it came to doing a survey, would they bother, assuming their answers would be a statistically-invalid freak result?

 

Suspect this is very much the case. Added to which is how the unreliability reflects in costs. If both a blown bulb and a blown gearbox each count as a failure then 2 equally failure prone cars by the report would have dramatically different costs (or possibly more realistically, a blown headlight bulb taking 2 minutes to fix, or a blown instrument cluster bulb which required the dashboard out)

 

I know that previously there have been surveys published of faults, both by number of faults and the costs of repairs and the results have been dramatically different

 

All the best

 

Katy

[MJI]

25 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

About 35 years ago, when VW were first really selling themselves on reliability, Dad took one of our Montegos into a local garage for some fault to be repaired, probably a wheel bearing or something.  They got through a few but as a whole those cars were a lot less trouble than their reputation would have suggested.

 

On another ramp in the garage was a Golf.  Dad asked the mechanic if he thought VWs were generally any more reliable than other marques.  The guy chuckled and replied that based on the number they'd had towed into the workshop, he couldn't see much difference.  Now that's only one person's view, but it has reinforced my own view that reliability surveys tend to reflect existing preconceptions.  If you had an unreliable BL car in the 80s you admitted it because, well, everyone knows they're unreliable, but would the person who have bought a (relatively expensive) Honda then had an expensive garage bill, gone round telling people about it?  When it came to doing a survey, would they bother, assuming their answers would be a statistically-invalid freak result?

I drive a so called very unreliable brand vehicle.

 

Failures are all bought in bits or worn out.

 

But i did drive 150 miles with a failed fuel pump, keep over 2000 and under 3500rpm.

 

The injectors were self pumping.

 

Broke down but got home. Fuel pump not made at solihull.

 

Aircon failed, bought in compressor bolt fell out and clutch fell off.

 

Component not made at solihull.

 

Starter motors,  bought in

 

But then it is 20 this month.

[MJI]

The engine is also much more reliable than the transit engine or the v6.

 

Or a lot of the competitors engines.

[MJI]

My dad had a vw many years ago, the crank snapped going up a hill.

 

Was a flat 4

[Dunsignalling]

20 minutes ago, MJI said:

My dad had a vw many years ago, the crank snapped going up a hill.

 

Was a flat 4

 

Air-cooled VWs aren't cars, they are a religion. I've always been an atheist.....🤢

 

Too noisy, and too thirsty (and, frankly, too sluggish) for my taste. A mate of mine had a 1300 that was slower than the 1100cc Renault I had at the time, and struggled to better 30mpg. 

 

The R10 (other than in city traffic, when it dropped to about 35mpg) consistently returned mid-40s unless I really thrashed it.

 

John  

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

About 35 years ago, when VW were first really selling themselves on reliability, Dad took one of our Montegos into a local garage for some fault to be repaired, probably a wheel bearing or something.  They got through a few but as a whole those cars were a lot less trouble than their reputation would have suggested.

 

On another ramp in the garage was a Golf.  Dad asked the mechanic if he thought VWs were generally any more reliable than other marques.  The guy chuckled and replied that based on the number they'd had towed into the workshop, he couldn't see much difference.  Now that's only one person's view, but it has reinforced my own view that reliability surveys tend to reflect existing preconceptions.  If you had an unreliable BL car in the 80s you admitted it because, well, everyone knows they're unreliable, but would the person who have bought a (relatively expensive) Honda then had an expensive garage bill, gone round telling people about it?  When it came to doing a survey, would they bother, assuming their answers would be a statistically-invalid freak result?

I had three Renaults in a row*, all of which were very good and generally didn't cost much in repairs, apart from the last (an 18GTS), which started to develop lots of minor-but-fairly-costly issues around the 140k mile mark. By that time it was getting a bit crisp anyway and a failed MoT sealed its fate.

 

I then bought a Mk2 Fiesta Popular Plus that looked like a bargain, 8 years old, 13k miles, one elderly lady owner who only used it twice a week to visit her sister 10 miles away. It was only intended to be a cheap stop-gap and it did nothing to disabuse me of that idea! Credit where it's due, though, I only dropped a couple of hundred on what I'd paid, 2-and-a-bit years and nearly 20k miles later. The next owner's dad wrote it off three weeks after that, by reversing his Volvo estate into it while the tailgate and one door were open. They tend to twist if you do that!  

 

I then had three Peugeots in a row between  1994 and 2015. I kept the first two for 10 and 9 years respectively, neither cost me much more than servicing and tyres and it wasn't unusual to go 2-3 years between any other expenditure.  The third, a 207sw, I just didn't get on with and only kept for just over 2-years but, like the others, it never needed "repairs" as such. All were sold as going concerns and all are still around, though the first is now a race car and there's not much left of what I had but for the shell. 

 

For the last 5 years I've had a Skoda Yeti, which TBH, is what I was after when I got the 207, but it took me ages to find exactly the specification I wanted without silly miles on it.

 

Cost over-and-above servicing/tyres in that time has amounted to:

 

One broken spring (not really fair to blame Skoda for that).

A new radio antenna base; a known issue, rainwater gets into older ones, about forty quid IIRC.

A new aircon condenser; quite costly because much else had to be dismantled to get at it.

A couple of light bulbs (not the expensive ones).

 

Cam belts need replacing twice as often as on Peugeots, though, and most other things are heavier and more expensive.

 

My verdict is, if I wanted an enjoyable drive at least cost, I'd probably get another Peugeot....  

 

John

 

Omitted: a Vauxhall Firenza 2300 SSL in between the first two Renaults. Fast, fun, and an utter money-pit, but that was down to the previous owner, not Vauxhall. 

 

Useful lesson learned: don't buy a car you really fancy (especially if it's a bit unusual) unless you have the cash and the patience required to find a decent example.....

Edited December 21, 2023 by Dunsignalling
Addition

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Air-cooled VWs aren't cars, they are a religion. I've always been an atheist.....🤢

I never "got" the whole Vee-Dub thing; in my youth many friends who worshipped Beetles, mocked rear-engined Skodas, without understanding the irony.  It sounded like too many Beetle and VW Bus enthusiasts - if they were not more general car enthusiasts - had bought into the whole air-cooled-reliability myth, such that they believed the cars didn't need maintenance.  I heard of more than a few that learned that mistake the hard way, usually with a car-full, en route to music festivals.

[MJI]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Air-cooled VWs aren't cars, they are a religion. I've always been an atheist.....🤢

 

Too noisy, and too thirsty (and, frankly, too sluggish) for my taste. A mate of mine had a 1300 that was slower than the 1100cc Renault I had at the time, and struggled to better 30mpg. 

 

The R10 (other than in city traffic, when it dropped to about 35mpg) consistently returned mid-40s unless I really thrashed it.

 

John  

 

Was about 50 years ago, I think they had a R12 as well at one stage, may be imaginging it.

 

Remember Beetle, Super Van, Rialto, Zephyr V6, Escort Mk1 or 2 estate, Avenger estate, Volvos 245 & 944 LPT, a Passatt, currently a random Korean car, I THINK it is a Hyundai.

 

Earlist memory is a Super Van, then Beetle, I have driven on road 245 and Avenger, the Zephyr bought to tow boat was very unreliable.

 

They had bikes a lot as well

[Dunsignalling]

6 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I never "got" the whole Vee-Dub thing; in my youth many friends who worshipped Beetles, mocked rear-engined Skodas, without understanding the irony.  It sounded like too many Beetle and VW Bus enthusiasts - if they were not more general car enthusiasts - had bought into the whole air-cooled-reliability myth, such that they believed the cars didn't need maintenance.  I heard of more than a few that learned that mistake the hard way, usually with a car-full, en route to music festivals.

 

Yes, and when the engine did "let go", it was quite often terminal! 

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

About 35 years ago, when VW were first really selling themselves on reliability, Dad took one of our Montegos into a local garage for some fault to be repaired, probably a wheel bearing or something.  They got through a few but as a whole those cars were a lot less trouble than their reputation would have suggested.

 

On another ramp in the garage was a Golf.  Dad asked the mechanic if he thought VWs were generally any more reliable than other marques.  The guy chuckled and replied that based on the number they'd had towed into the workshop, he couldn't see much difference.  Now that's only one person's view, but it has reinforced my own view that reliability surveys tend to reflect existing preconceptions.  If you had an unreliable BL car in the 80s you admitted it because, well, everyone knows they're unreliable, but would the person who have bought a (relatively expensive) Honda then had an expensive garage bill, gone round telling people about it?  When it came to doing a survey, would they bother, assuming their answers would be a statistically-invalid freak result?

 

In the early 80's, a colleague at the regional office of the French motor manufacturer I worked for brought in a neighbours invoice for the first service on the Honda he owned. His neighbour was horrified by the cost and asked for our views on it. What was apparent was that the service schedule called for the replacement of a lot of parts that most companies did not in my experience (I had also worked for Ford and Opel).However, they were the sort of parts which, had they failed would would have probably damaged the owners view of the reliability of his Honda. As I recall they included the fan belt, wiper blades and radiator cap. So Honda's image for reliability was partly being paid for by the owners service bill.

[alastairq]

Dropping an exhaust valve was the usual trick with air cooled VWs....mostly no.3 [front left, looking from the back]. Often at around 38000 miles.

Sage advice of the time was to pull the left head and measure the valve length.

I didn't.

Hence, a type 3 fastback [1600 'flat' engine]...dropped its valve at 70 mph on the M62..

Type 2 bay window van [1600 upright] dropped its valve whilst idling on the driveway.

The advantage of the VW aircooled, and the 'following' it had, enthusiast-wise, was the ease with which a replacement engine [or, half engine] would arrive on one's doorstep on a pallet. 

Swapping over essentials wasn't a major job, and fitting it involved nothing more complex than a trolleyjack.

[Rugd1022]

I went through a short phase of wanting a Beetle when my youngest sister was looking for one, but was soon cured of it after driving three of them over a weekend. I do like them but have no burning desire to own one, unlike lots of other classic cars. I am rather partial to Karmann Ghia and Type 34 Coupes though, there's something about both types that really appeals. 

 

Regarding older gearboxes - the manual / overdrive in my '73 Series 2 XJ6 was a joy to use, as was the four speed manual in my '73 Rover P6 2000TC, both had just the right amount of 'snickertiness' when changing up or down. By far the smoothest was the Borg Warner three speed auto in my '70 Rover P5B Coupe.

[APOLLO]

I bought a tatty but serviceable 1970 J Reg VW 1302S Beetle for £350 (It had a 1600 engine so I never understood the 1302 bit).

 

I bought it as a second car for a couple of years, sold it to a mate who resold it to another mate. He did it up in my garage with new wings, footboards, respray etc and resold it to me for £600. I ran it for a couple of years and sold it to yet another mate for £500 and bought my 1973 Rover P5B saloon for £800 back in 1982. I still have and run the Rover, superb car. The VW soldiered on, engine blew up & was replaced, (easy job as mentioned), beetled on and was sold on yet again !!

 

Wonderfull cars (Beetles) ? - Not really, but mine was fun to drive and reliable. Would I run another ? - NO !!

A car once as common as muck but very rare these days.

 

Yes the BW 3 speed auto box coupled to the Rover 3.5 Litre V8 is allways a pleasure to drive. 

 

Brit15

[peanuts]

Ok you lot appeal for help my friend's mk1 1985 honda jazz  suffered a stone through the windscreen last night .after contact with insurance lead time for replacement is 4-6 weeks !! .bossat work has phoned around his contacts and is getting similar numbers .does anyone know of one lying unused somewhere long shot i know but .....