Should I snag this transmission?

[rabbitman]

So I was wandering around the jy the other day and found a 88 jetta (gasser) partly stripped and with the tranny removed and sitting in the trunk.

The tranny is a AON code and the same gearing as a ASF, ACN and ACL. Do these codes have desirable ratios?

Don't know the price but I think I could get it for around $100......(if I don't tell 'em it's already pulled)

[theman53]

http://www.scirocco.org/gears/

definately

[8v-of-fury]

that'd be good behind a 1.9TD or a 1.9TDI. It would be absolutely horrible behind an n/a though.

[R.O.R-2.0]

So I was wandering around the jy the other day and found a 88 jetta (gasser) partly stripped and with the tranny removed and sitting in the trunk.

The tranny is a AON code and the same gearing as a ASF, ACN and ACL. Do these codes have desirable ratios?

Don't know the price but I think I could get it for around $100......(if I don't tell 'em it's already pulled)

JUMP ON IT!!

i run ACN trannies, and LOVE them.. (same as your AON)

idk why you couldnt run this behind an n/a either.. they came stock behind 85 hp gas engines with no torque. atleast the diesels have torque.

my n/a rabbit used to have a 4A trans and it did OK. it had 3.94's and a .71 4th gear..

its got 3.67 final drive, and a .75 5th gear. they are nice trannies. 1-4 are semi close gears, and 5th is nice for cruisin..

100 bucks is a STEAL..

(i dropped one of these trannies in my old 85 GTI, and it made it more fun to drive.)

[8v-of-fury]

Acceleration would be non existent with this transmission attached to a 1.6 non turbo diesel.

The 3.67 Final drive a.k.a the rear end gears (which might make this easier to picture) make a huge difference on the amount of Acceleration or Top Speed a car is able to put down. The 0.27 difference (3.67-3.94) in the ratios is pretty substantial. There is a reason why the v8 rwd boys swap the rear gears out as one of the easy things to get more power to the ground. Sure you loose top speed, but how often are you really going to be going over 90mph? Pretty much never

Also the 85 hp 1.8L gas engine puts down 98 tq. As compared to the 72 tq a 1.6 na diesel does. The 85 hp gas engine puts down the same tq as a 1.6td, so yeah the AON, ACN, ACL, ASF is perfectly suited for a 95+ tq engine. Anything less and i'm sure it'd be horrible. Another thing to consider is if it were suitably matched for the diesel motors you would more than likely see a lot more with them.

Also, Happy birthday k3vo!!  

That gti probably woulda hauled way more ass if it had a 3.94 FD lol

[R.O.R-2.0]

Acceleration would be non existent with this transmission attached to a 1.6 non turbo diesel.

The 3.67 Final drive a.k.a the rear end gears (which might make this easier to picture) make a huge difference on the amount of Acceleration or Top Speed a car is able to put down. The 0.27 difference (3.67-3.94) in the ratios is pretty substantial. There is a reason why the v8 rwd boys swap the rear gears out as one of the easy things to get more power to the ground. Sure you loose top speed, but how often are you really going to be going over 90mph? Pretty much never

Also the 85 hp 1.8L gas engine puts down 98 tq. As compared to the 72 tq a 1.6 na diesel does. The 85 hp gas engine puts down the same tq as a 1.6td, so yeah the AON, ACN, ACL, ASF is perfectly suited for a 95+ tq engine. Anything less and i'm sure it'd be horrible. Another thing to consider is if it were suitably matched for the diesel motors you would more than likely see a lot more with them.

Also, Happy birthday k3vo!!  

That gti probably woulda hauled way more ass if it had a 3.94 FD lol

thanks for the birthday wishes 

3.94 gears w/ .71 4th = 2331 revs
3.67 gears w/ .75 5th = 2294 revs

not much of a difference there buddy.. 35 rpms isnt gonna make the car that much slower..

diesels INDEED DID come with very high ratio trannies.. all the 3+E trannies are super high geared wide ratio trannies. AND THEY CAME BEHIND N/A DIESELS.. ive got one of said trannies. the n/a really wasnt bad at all with that 4A trans i had.

and i wouldnt run 3.94 gears in anything that i daily drive.. i like turning LOW rpms..

and theres NO WAY that a gasser 1.8 has the same torque as a TD.. or let me re-phrase that.. theres no way it has the same torque down low.. my 1.8 is gutless compared to the diesel. the diesel actually has down low torque, the gasser, what torque?

[rabbitman]

Yup that's the difference is when the torque actually kicks in, diesel's make it down low while gassers gotta rev to get torque.

My NA rabbit has a FN with 3.89 final and .71 5th and I like it. Just didn't know what difference the 5th and final of the AON would make.

[DieselBalz]

I swapped the AVX that was in my eco with an ASF, and it was a major improvement to the overall driveability. Those four codes seem to be the most sought after trannies. A hundo is a great price.

[R.O.R-2.0]

I swapped the AVX that was in my eco with an ASF, and it was a major improvement to the overall driveability. Those four codes seem to be the most sought after trannies. A hundo is a great price.

there are quite a few desirable VW trannies.. but desirable could be different between 2 people.. some people love close ratio trannies, some people love the long ratio trannies.

i, for one, like a long ratio tranny in all my cars. short ratio trannies DO make the car more fun to drive, but i dont dig the whole "3000 rpms @ 60 mph" thing associated with all of VWs close ratio trannies.

[8v-of-fury]

Yup that's the difference is when the torque actually kicks in, diesel's make it down low while gassers gotta rev to get torque.

1.6 TD makes its 98 tq at 2800, the 85 hp gasser at 3200. They are identical motors. The na makes its 72 tq at 2100. 72 is just a pathetic number to begin with. lolol

[Quantum TD]

As noted by 8V of Fury, the 3.67 R&P is great for any TD or 1.9 application. For 1.6 NA, it's not so great. The final drive isn't the problem, it's the Ring and Pinion. The higher the number, the higher the one-the-ground torque.

The 3.67 is a great freeway flyer, but getting up to those speeds can be frustrating in a 1.6NA. And, you can forget about backing up a hill without burning up your clutch.

I've tried just about every VW trans on a 1.6 NA, and the only good ones were the 5-speeds originally fitted to 1980-1989 cars. Those include the FF, FO, FN, AOP, ACH, AGS, 7A, and 4S. After 1989 (AWY and AVX), the gearing sucks.

[theman53]

I find that if you live in a hilly area like me I want the 3.67 gear. The 3.94 isn't low enough to pull hills in 5th anyway, so if you down shift to 1.03 fourth gear with a 3.67 = 3.78 it is lower than the .71 5th and a 3.94=2.79.....but if you are on the flat you still have the advantages of one more gear and the 5th .71 and the 3.67= 2.60
It is only a few RPM difference but if you take the 3.67 you can stay in gears longer while accelerating.

My ideal trans would be as follows:
1st=no option but the 3.45
2nd=2.12 
3rd=1.37 
4th=1.03
5th=.71
Ring&Pinion 3.67
The ACN would be very close to that. And since the AON you found is the same as the ACN I would definately grab it. My modded AGS has a problem with the .91 4th being an overdrive, other than that I like it with the 3.67 installed.

[rabbitman]

I'll look into it next time I get close to the jy then.

[R.O.R-2.0]

As noted by 8V of Fury, the 3.67 R&P is great for any TD or 1.9 application. For 1.6 NA, it's not so great. The final drive isn't the problem, it's the Ring and Pinion. The higher the number, the higher the one-the-ground torque.

The 3.67 is a great freeway flyer, but getting up to those speeds can be frustrating in a 1.6NA. And, you can forget about backing up a hill without burning up your clutch.

I've tried just about every VW trans on a 1.6 NA, and the only good ones were the 5-speeds originally fitted to 1980-1989 cars. Those include the FF, FO, FN, AOP, ACH, AGS, 7A, and 4S. After 1989 (AWY and AVX), the gearing sucks.

last i checked, the final drive was the ring and pinion? lol..

[rabbitman]

Funny I never noticed that little misunderstanding.........