Is a manual transmission better than an automatic on a 1987 VW Vanagon and why?

I have heard that the biggest advantage to a manual over an automatic transmission is that when an automatic breaks, the transmission is very expensive to replace. I'm looking into buying a vanagon and one I'm interested in is an automatic with a rebuilt transmission and engine. Is there a reason I should be looking for a manual instead? I know it may get slightly worse gas mileage, but tell me how much worse. Thanks.|||On the waterboxer engined Vanagons the largest problem is the engine; its true the automatic transmission is not as reliable as some other vehicles, but its ok. The three speed automatic downshifts quickly enough, but with only some 90 BHP, they just don't accelerate very fast. The standard transmission makes the most use of the available horsepower (what little there is). The four speed manual also has fairly wide spacing of gear ratios, but that's ok, you spend a lot of time in the hills driving in third gear; in the automatic version, you'd be over reving in second gear (manual over ride) or shifting back and forth between second gear and direct drive (3rd gear).





Drive the automatic in hilly areas at highway speeds to see if you can live with its very limited performance. Expect that 0 - 60 mph will be close to 20 seconds with an automatic, maybe 17 seconds with a stick (driven at the limits in the gears); this is very slow--even the 2004 Chevy Aveo with an automatic was about 11 seconds or so... you'll need the manual transmission to shift often to a lower gear to get it rolling along...





My largest reservation on the vehicle isn't the transmission: the waterboxer motor on the Vanagon has been known to overheat frequently, blow head gaskets and crack heads. Parts are getting harder to come by (especially good heads that are aren't cracked or heavily pitted), and the cooling system has be in top shape to prevent overheating of the motor. Bleeding the cooling system is a majour pain in the rear, but if you don't do it right, the engine will develop an air pocket and overheat for sure....





I would suggest either an air cooled Vanagon or the later Eurovans; the early Eurovans aren't much more powerful, but have a lot more torque at a lower rpm than the waterboxer Vanagon motors so that they aren't as sluggish in acceleration. On a Eurovan, get the automatic, the manual transmission was only offered for a couple of years and parts are extremely expensive for it.





Hope this helps, a car nut.|||The mileage isn't the problem as much as the performance. With newer cars that offer both manual and automatic, the number of gears in each is usually the same, but that is not the case on those old Vanagons. The automatic is only a three speed, but the manuals were either four or five (not sure what year they changed), so you have more ratios with the stick.





You need every one of them in that van, those are slow no matter what.





So - stick is better, but if you have driven it and can live with the performance, go for it. You can't be too picky when looking at a car that's over 20 years old|||Not only is the automatic the most likely thing to break that is expensive, but the torque converter always slips a little, the brakes have to work harder, the starter gets more work out in cold weather, and you don't get as much control on slippery roads.


Only get an automatic if the deal is too good to pass up.


Otherwise it is not worth it.


Mileage with about 10% worse.


Brakes wear out about 15% faster.


Engines wear out about 10% sooner because they rev more to get the same speed.


Batteries and starters wear out 20% sooner if you are in a cold climate.