30th September 2002, 09:38 PM
Wondering if the automatic gearbox coupled with turbo engine was a problem in 9000's around the year 93. I know earlier 900 turbos with auto gearboxes were problematic, but were these issues worked out on the 9000's by 1993?
1st October 2002, 08:51 AM
It really depends on the torque output of the engine. It is said that the 2.3T full-pressure 200hp engine's torque output is right on the edge of what the ZF transmission was designed to handle. It is known that automatic transmissions on the 200hp engine tend to have a shorter average life than when mated to lower-torque engine variants. I have seen an average of 100K miles quoted. Abuse (full-throttle upshifts, for example) also tends to shorten life.
1st October 2002, 02:06 PM
Thanks for the info! Interesting that they match a gearbox thats not really prepared to reliably handle the output of the engine its coupled with.
Is the manual transmission in the 9000 better? I know the 900 transmission was "beefed" up as the years went along, were the gearboxes the same in the 9000? Can the manual reliably handle the high hp and torque of the 2.3 turbo?
1st October 2002, 02:37 PM
Manual gearbox is a completely different story. It's nothing like the C900 box. My '87 9000T box only started giving problems coming up to 200K miles. I believe they steadily improved and in '94 a new gearbox was introduced which is said to be even more reliable. My '96 Aero's gearbox has almost 170K miles on it and I'm shoving about 300hp and 330lbft of torque through it. No sign of failure yet.
The manual gearbox is easily capable of handling the output of the 2.3T engine. In fact, you get more torque than the auto as the torque in the automatic cars was limited (by limiting the boost) in order to keep it under the limit for the gearbox (which, it seems, was marginal). It's really the enormous torque of these engines that makes it hard on the auto box.
1st October 2002, 02:43 PM
Sounds like I'm gonna scratch the automatic idea. After seeing a reall ygorgeous wood-trimmed 1993 CSE, I had almost talked myself into the notion that maybe it wouldnt be that bad to drive an automatic for long trips and stuff.. but i think the reliability problem puts an end to that. Now if only I could come close to affording an Aero... Long live the stick. :cheesy:
1st October 2002, 05:40 PM
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, a manual 9000 will be much cheaper than an auto. The exception, of course, is the Aero, where anyone actively looking for an Aero will be well aware that only the manual had the 225hp engine.
And how often do you change gear on long journeys anyway? An auto wouldn't be for me unless I drove regularly through town traffic. Then I'd consider taking a cab...
1st October 2002, 10:04 PM
Yeah I think I was just distracted by the amazing wood trim on this particular specimen... will have to find one with a stick! I was actually considering the auto for going through town, but I'll just have to keep to the commuter rail should I move towards the city.
Thanks for all the info!
2nd October 2002, 06:06 PM
To be fair, a well-serviced auto is very smooth and easy to drive..., which is worth something if you live in a big city. They do seem to be rated at their limit though at 200hp, as witnessed by the auto Aero not getting more than 200hp.
I tend to think that it's all about how you treat it, like most things on these cars...
2nd October 2002, 06:55 PM
Definitely true. I on occassion curse my stick when stuck in traffic in the more metropolitan areas of the northeast U.S. It is just a pain in the ***. But when the traffic clears and you floor it, boy is it fun to run the gears. :cheesy:
If I lived in a larger city, I think I'd probably have a automatic just for dealing with the slow moving traffic.