Quote:
Originally Posted by hybris
It indicates that manuals are probably reliable, you're one broken down auto is anecdotal. I have the opposite experience with BMW - several autos that didn't break and one manual that did break.. So I'm just saying the one that broke down doesn't necessarily "prove" that one is more reliable than the other.
Syncro problems / worn down syncro rings, they had to rebuild the transmission. I've had a bunch of manual cars (I live in Norway where up until recently manual has been the norm, not the other way around), so I'm reasonably confident that I didn't break it - may have been the previous owner for all I know, or some kind of problem from the factory / lemon.
|
The auto was not anecdotal. Google GM 4L60...
Not "probably"... "are reliable". 378,000 on the box in my E90. 3 lube changes. The car sees very fast back road driving every day and crap traffic in DC suburbs every day (constant torque shock - what you are alluding to as a design issue with manuals).
So your manual blows up at 24,000 miles and you infer it means manuals are of weak design as a general principle. Yet you failed to mention it was a used car that you don't know the prior ownership use. Of the 10+ cars in my data source, 3 were used and without known history. Talk about anecedotal...