I have never had trouble with the "Auto" in my 80, but I had a dodge a few years back that the auto trans went at 71K miles, after having trans rebuilt is was going out again at 140K miles only thing that saved me from having to fix it again was it was stolen in downtown StL. So auto's do go out. I am looking at getting a C4 soon and wanting the 6 speed manual trans in it.

Mike.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, there were certainly a lot of C3's with autos so I'm not sure the C4 was what ushered this trend in, but more likely acceleated it. I bought an '84 when they first debuted (traded in my '79) and one thing I remember quite distinctly is that the C4 was a HUGE change for Corvette, not just in body style/technology but also in the people who bought them. Suddenly it seemed that more guys in suits and women were behind the wheel when you encountered another one on the road (and they knew nothing about "the wave") instead of your typical "car guys" that the Vette had previously been associated with.

I would also tender a guess that there were more first-time Corvette buyers in the early C4 years than any other Vette generation. Even at the time I often wondered whether the abundance of automatics had more to do with catering to and fostering these new Corvette demographics, making it an easier car to drive for a wider range of people. Also, don't forget that the baby boomers were all in their 20's and 30's at the time, and it was probably one of the largest groups of businesswomen to emerge as sports car buyers, a factor I'm sure wasn't lost on the GM/Corvette marketing team.

 

The OEM reliability and durability data is not with your personal experiences. Auto tranmissions are far FAR more trouble prone than manuals. As someone who used to be a big 3 powertrain planning manager, I can tell you that it's not even close. That's not to say that manuals don't have their problems too, but by and large, A/Ts have been more problematic.

Consider this, manual tranmissions are basically gears, linkage, and the clutch mechanism. This is generally viewed as one system by transmission engineers. Automatics on the other hand have multiple systems that can fail - gears/servos, torque converters, pumps, linkage, clutches/bands and the valve bodies. There is a lot more there to fail. And if you've ever pulled apart a valve body, you would know what I mean.

 

I am guessing that the majority of Vettes through the years have been sold through dealers whose primary market was trucks and family sedans. When they sat down to order a few Vettes they leaned towards automatics, with the occasional manual thrown in for variety. The bulk of the buyers who test drove Vettes probably came in looking for a Chevelle or Camaro as a daily driver andd bought the Vette on an impulse. The daily driver mindset, along with the typical demographic of the individuals who can affort to buy a new Vette on a whim dictated an automatic over a stick. For this kind of dealership, the stick cars probably sold rather slow.

When I was a teenager living in Birmingham, the Olds dealer was a short walk from the house and when things got boring (i.e. no airconditioning and only 3 TV channels) I'd go down and check out the inventory of 442's. Al lot of the inventory was highly optioned cars with automatics. Maybe a quarter of the inventory had 4 speeds and most of those had drum brakes, manual steering and no A/C. These hot rods sold to young steel workers that then went out and wrecked them. The body shop there always had a couple of 4 speed cars in for front end damage (Drum brakes, remember) and they kept a stack of new frames on stock. Fast forward a few years and the first car I bought and paid for myself was a '67 442 with 4 speed, posi rear and drum brakes. The first retrofit was power steering, the second was front discs. My young wife would pound my right arm black and blue for driving that thing like it was paid for. A few years later I bought my first (and only) brand new car, an '81 Mazda RX-7 with a manual. The wide ratio 5 speed and 8 grand redline got put to good use quite often. With that experience base I can say without a doubt that today, my Lincoln Town Car and V6 Camaro convertible consistently get flogged a hell of a lot harder, trying to get the dang automatics to do what I want, WHEN I want it, than my LT1 ZF6, which, with a push of the clutch and the flick of a wrist, can react on MY term's rather than the transmission's.

Sorry. What was the question again?

 

Ok, so now say both transmissions have failed, what is your out of pocket money to rebuild an automatic compared to the ZF? I already know the answer by the way. We won't even get into the whole dual mass thing. I've driven and enjoyed both standard and auto tranny's, but there are pros and cons to both.

 

Completely depends on how you handle the situation. I'd rebuild the ZF myself....so, that would be cheaper. In MY case. I know most wouldn't do it that way.

On the other hand, I'd guess that statistically, most folks would rebuild 2 autos in the time that 1 ZF would last. The trans (NV3500) in my truck is currently at 242k, no bearing noise, shifts great...gets used HARD (towing). So what's two auto trans builds cost, vs. 1 ZFDoc rebuild? I know two autos is probably about $5k. IDK about ZFDoc.

 

I'll give you my explanation for why there were more automatics than manual and slowly the autos are growing larger in number.

In the US there were always a lot of autos than other parts of the world and even the manufacturers that tried couldn't get it right. There were always problems with them breaking down and too costly repairs so people just stuck to manuals. Even now I see people buying commuter crappy cars around here that are manuals and then excusing it as to say that they get better mileage (coming from a house wife that can't shift anyway and drives in 2. most of the time) or that they prefer to feel the car in control (like you could feel anything in the crappy commuter cars anyway) or that sometimes they like to drive a little bit sporty (of course in a mini van with no power and the feel of an elastic band not counting you can't drive sporty anywhere anyway). Then they go on to say that it costs to much to buy and it can break down and maintenance is costly. But they shove out for extra bs they don't need in a car anyway, manuals break to and I'm betting even more since most people are grinding them so even the cost of maintenance is lower.
But returning back to the issue as a result cars that were produced for the entire world were mostly manuals (hondas, miatas, etc.) but cars that were US specific were made more autos simply because it's more convenient.

Here's my personal opinion. I've driven manuals for most of my life and pretty much know what I'm doing but during morning commutes and traffic jams and summer mid highway stops moving at a snails pace had me cursing the hell out of the manual. For this reason I decided I'd get an automatic because it's more convenient. As far as the Vette goes it's the same I can comfortably live with without the manual transmission the few times I'd like to have it vs. the time I'd be cursing for having it. Especially since most of the stuff can be done with an auto that can be done with a manual.

Granted sometimes I'd love to have a clutch and a shifter in staid of an auto just for the feel of it but I went into it for a reason that I thought trough so that the decision I have to live with and I'm convinced I made the right one for me.

As for the US I see a lot of compelling arguments why the majority of cars would be autos and since driving a manual takes certin skills not needed with manuals manufacturers making veihcles for a US only marked would take this into account.

As far as performance goes I prefer the automatics in American cars than to most Euro made stuff. Both my Vette and my Chrysler in my opinion have a better auto transmission than the couple of European cars I've driven. They're smother and shift without most of the time flawlessly comparing to the Euro counterparts. As for actual on the paper performance I wouldn't know and don't care since I know what I want.

 

We could go back and forth here for days guessing and coming up with hypotheticals, but there have been members here with well over 200,000 miles on their original automatic transmissions. It all comes down to maintenance in the end, if something isn't maintained properly, it will fail, and when it does, which will cost the most?

 

Yeah, man....I too have had an auto that went past 200k. 245k when I sold the car. But I've also had (or been responsible for a fleet of) over 100 vehicles, in which all the rest, had autos and they all failed at some point during ownership. Only saw one manual trans "failure" and that was from the operator resting his hand on the shifter for years, and wore out the shift fork. $30 for a new fork and it was fixed.

We could "Guess" all day, so how's this?: bb62 is right; statistically, autos break more and cost more to fix.

 

I bought my '86 Coupe new and now wish I had ordered the standard transmission instead of the automatic. On the other hand, I hear some "bad mouthing" about the early C4 manuals. What specifically is the reason they are not well liked by some?

 

Other than breaking a lot and being notoriously hard to shift, what's not to like (wait for it......)

 

Automatics = more sales, simple as that.

Prior to moving to the San Fran area, all my cars were manuals, but I can tell you now that commuting on the hills and traffic here changed my mind real fast. If you spend a few weeks sitting in traffic on some of the streets of San Fran, you'll curse the man that invented the manual transmission.

With my auto, if the need arises, I can have my gf or any of my assistants drive my vette. If it were a six speed my options would be limited.

 

I LOVE my ZF6 box. I'll never own a Corvette (unless its a DEDICATED drag car) that has an automatic. If it doesn't have the "man" pedal I don't want it.

There is sheer pleasure in perfectly executed downshifts and upshifts that gives more satisfaction and driver involvement than ANY automatic of ANY sort can give you.

With a Manual transmission you are in control and ONE with the machine. The driver involvement level is SO much higher. Automatics are good for appliances if that is what you want to drive. For a sports car, manual box or go home.

I LOVE the fact GM has ONLY manual gearboxes in the Z06 and ZR1. That is the way it should be. You drive a sports car because of the driving enjoyment and involvement. The manual box completes this.

Plus, it is just ball'in to drive a stick and do it well. MOST people cannot.

 

I chose an auto for drag racing purposes. Its tough (impossible) to be as consistent as an auto.

 

with TA....Plus there faster.........Ask Pete Kane......I have a Stage 2 auto in my 89, there's no way in this world anyone could shift faster with a stick.....WW

 

$$$$$$$$ Autos were cheaper. 6 speeds were more $$$$$$$$ because they were the optional trans.

 

I had an 89' 6 speed and just loved that transmission. Then my job moved into the city. After years of city rush hour driving I swore I would never buy a stick shift again. in 08' my dad and I were out in my vette and the local dealer had two 96's in their showroom windows. We stopped and both were GM owned and titled cars with automatics. I had them get one out of the showroom and my pop and I went for a little test drive. Once away from the dealer I flogged it and this thing down shifted and smoked the tires. When it upshifted it did it quicker and harder then any automatic I've ever drove. My dad could not believe an automatic could shift like this did. I drove it home that day and have had it ever since. I no longer work in the city but while I did it was actually fun to drive in traffic and I would put it up against any person manually shifting. It just does it so well. Red line every time and quicker than I ever could shift the 89'. Yes I'm older now and more lazy but that's not what I find attractive about this automatic. It just does its thing so well.

 

GM,like all manufacturers are in if profit.They sell NEW cars..The ratio of automatic to standards.is mostly a result of giving the original buyer what they wanted they made that decision themselves...I'm pretty sure that they were the same price.

 

The big news for 1989 was the completely new six speed manual transmission. It was designed for the Corvette by Zahradfabrik Firedshafen A.G. (ZF) a German transmission builder with an excellent background for producing bulletproof transmissions for high horsepower applications. It replaced the "4+3" manual plus overdrive Doug Nash unit that first appeared in 1984 Corvettes. It was a no-cost option (the four speed automatic was standard) with improved shifting characteristics as part of the bargain.
Similar in some ways to the overdrive function of the "4+3" manual, the new transmission featured a Computer Aided Gear Selection (CAGS) system. Under certain circumstances (engine warmed up, speed between 12 - 19 mph, less than 35% throttle) shifting up from first caused fourth gear to be selected. Any other circumstances (in other words, spirited driving) caused the transmission to behave like a conventional six speed. The goal was improved fuel economy and the system resulted in an EPA rating of 16 mpg city / 25 mpg highway rating - and once again the Corvette was not subjected to the gas guzzler tax.
Also new (and overshadowed by the introduction of the six speed) for 1989 was the Selective Ride System (RPO FX3; $1,695.00). It required the Performance Handling Package (RPO Z51; $575.00) which was was available only with manual transmission coupes so the price added up. It started a new trend in Corvettes: giving the driver the ability to control suspension settings. Three settings were available - Tour, Sport and Perf[ormance] - controlled by a rotary switch just behind the shifter. Within each mode there were six different settings which varied depending on the speed. The settings were implemented via actuators located in the shock absorbers.

 

It's a 4 speed manual w/what basically amounts to a 2 speed automatic trans stuck on the rear of the 4 speed. Most of the issues w/the trans assy are with the 2 speed "automatic" overdrive unit, or the controls for it. The 4 speed part generally works pretty well.