Design of automobile transmissions
karen_...@yahoo.com
design of automobile transmissions.
I am only about 6'1" but with legs of a 6'3" and it annoys me to be
boxed in the cars, especially the so called sports luxury cars, where
the freaking transmission sits between the driver and passenger and I
cannot stretch my legs on long trips.
I do not know of any non American cars with bench seats.
What I don't understand is this .
Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and
passenger ? Even in those cars where the control is on the steering
column, it looks like the transmission is under the area in front of
the front seats . Why ? why can't you place the transmission near the
engine and use electronic controls to change gears (at least in auto
transmission cars)
It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
cramped area. This sux
What is wrong with split bench type bucket seats ?
Isn't also more < romantic > ?
mst
> It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
> cramped area. This sux
Try a Corvette - now THAT sucks.
--
remove MYSHOES to email
karen_...@yahoo.com
karen_...@yahoo.com
mst wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 18:08:37 -0700 karen_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
> > cramped area. This sux
>
> Try a Corvette - now THAT sucks.
>
> --
Well it DOES.........for some of us
Personally I would prefer a split bucket bench or even a bench seat car
anyday to the most expensive pretentious vain overprized crap like
Corvette
You totally miss my point. I am talking about NOT having to
sacrifice comfort
What is wrong if everything is same the Corvette but if gearshift
control was on the steering column and the area between seats if free
to move your legs. I am not saya ing everyone would prefer it but there
will be s significant % that would prefer it.
How much ? I do not know but at least 25% which is good enough to
justify another model with such a design
Yet you missed (or just prefer to troll because you are clueless about
technical issues) the central issue of my quetion.
Vain moron............goodbye
Bob
Bob
Sure thing... a vette with three on the tree and a bench seat...... and you
call him a moron.......lmfao!
Bob
C. E. White
<karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130461717.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> What I have always wondered about for a while is about the mechanical
> design of automobile transmissions.
>
> I am only about 6'1" but with legs of a 6'3" and it annoys me to be
> boxed in the cars, especially the so called sports luxury cars, where
> the freaking transmission sits between the driver and passenger and I
> cannot stretch my legs on long trips.
> I do not know of any non American cars with bench seats.
I think some of the older Avalons offered them as an option.
> What I don't understand is this .
> Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and
> passenger ? Even in those cars where the control is on the steering
> column, it looks like the transmission is under the area in front of
> the front seats . Why ? why can't you place the transmission near the
> engine and use electronic controls to change gears (at least in auto
> transmission cars)
Not all cars have the transmission between the seats. Most transverse engine
front wheel drive cars have it either beside, in front of, or under the
engine. Such cars still usually have a small tunnel for routing the exhaust
pipe. Plus the tunnel acts to stiffen the floor pan. For rear wheel drive
cars, the transmission is usually bolted directly to the rear of the engine.
In order to distribute the weight of the engine and transmission as evenly
as possible between the front and rear wheels, designers usually try to
position the engine and transmission as far to the rear as possible. The
tunnel you are complaining about has to provide room for the engine,
transmission, exhaust manifolds and pipes, wiring, etc., etc. Vee style
engines are wider than the inline engines, so the tunnel has to be
particularly wide near the front of the passenger compartment. Automatic
transmissions tend to be particularly large and require more room in the
tunnel than manual transmissions. Older cars sat up higher, and therefore
the tunnel was smaller. There are also older designs that pushed the
passenger compartment towards the rear of the car However, if you want a
spacious four seat passenger compartment and a useful trunk, this makes for
a very long car. There have been cars in the past that separated the
transmission from the engine. Instead of having the transmission directly
behind the engine, it is relocated to the rear of the car and combined with
the final drive. The engine and transmission are connected by a relatively
long high speed drive shaft. These have been done to have vibration
problems.
>
> It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
> cramped area. This sux
Try one the large front wheel drive cars instead, like a Toyota Avalon or
Buick La Crosse. You might also find a Ford Crown Victoria meets your needs.
> What is wrong with split bench type bucket seats ?
Just out of fashion. If manufacturer's thought they would sell more cars,
they would make them available. The last car I owned with a split front
bench seat was a 1989 Ford Taurus Wagon. My Mom's Grand Marquis has a bench
seat - and the tunnel is very small - very much an old style car.
> Isn't also more < romantic > ?
Hmmmmmm
Ed
Ted Mittelstaedt
> design of automobile transmissions.
>
> I am only about 6'1" but with legs of a 6'3" and it annoys me to be
> boxed in the cars, especially the so called sports luxury cars, where
> the freaking transmission sits between the driver and passenger and I
> cannot stretch my legs on long trips.
I would strongly suggest you try driving a minivan a while. Legroom
is far better in these, even for the driver.
Ted
N8N
Tell ya what, I'll trade you Vlad the Impala (complete with column
shift and split bench) for that Corvette you don't want.
Problem is, bench seats and column shifters are seen as "low rent" so
only the completely suckiest cars get them.
nate
H...@nospam.nix
"C. E. White" <cew...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Bvh8f.1034
> Not all cars have the transmission between the seats. Most transverse
engine
> front wheel drive cars have it either beside, in front of, or under the
> engine.
It confused me for a moment too, CE, but she or he means the shifter, not
the
tranny.
And there are cars that you can buy that have the shifter on the column, and
individually adjustable bench type front seats. My wife's Buick has that
configuration.
*
H...@nospam.nix wrote in article
<dTm8f.7398$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
>
> It confused me for a moment too, CE, but she or he means the shifter, not
> the
> tranny.
>
Actually, I DO believe she was talking about the transmission itself....and
the "hump" it needs in the floor.....
• • Karen_2005_z wrote:
• • What I don't understand is this .
Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and
passenger ?
• • Even in those cars where the control is on the steering
column, it looks like the transmission is under the area in front of
the front seats . Why ?
• • • • why can't you place the transmission near the
engine and use electronic controls to change gears (at least in auto
transmission cars)
If she actually knew what she was talking about, she would KNOW that the
transmission couldn't get any closer to the engine in most RWD cars such as
hers since it is attached directly to the engine.
Then she questions the technical knowledge of another poster by saying.....
• • Yet you missed (or just prefer to troll because you are clueless about
H...@nospam.nix
"*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote in message
news:01c5dbae$63b7a7a0$cfa5c3d8@race...
>
>
> H...@nospam.nix wrote in article
> <dTm8f.7398$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > It confused me for a moment too, CE, but she or he means the shifter,
not
> > the
> > tranny.
> >
>
>
> Actually, I DO believe she was talking about the transmission
itself....and
> the "hump" it needs in the floor.....
>
Could be. I havent seen a car with a transmission hump lately. In the
good old days, the hump was in the back seat too;>)
John S.
Get a Lincoln Navigator or a Chevy Caprice ...plenty of leg room.
Actually I'm long legged 6 feet and 180 pounds and have no problem
getting into mid-sized Volvo V70 wagons. Is there another "size" issue
your are not telling us about?
Steve
> I do not know of any non American cars with bench seats.
So buy an American car. Get a full-size front-drive American car (eg. a
Cadillac DTS), and you get a nearly flat floorboard AND a bench seat.
>
> What I don't understand is this .
> Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and
> passenger ?
In a conventional rear-drive car, the transmission has to lie between
the engine (front) and the rear wheels. OR, you can do it like the
Corvette C5/C6, and put the transmission between the rear wheels (a rear
transAXLE) and avoid the problem. Its nothing to do with where the
"control" (I presume you mean the gearshift lever) is located. FWD cars
have had the transmission out by the left front wheel (in most cases-
IIRC Hondas have it on the right side) for YEARS, and have variously
located both manual and automatic shifters between the seats or on the
steering column. Chryslers had pushbutton gear selectors on the
dashboard and a transmission under the floor for YEARS back in the 50s.
> It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
> cramped area. This sux
Yes. Mercedes sux. They're overpriced and overcomplicated, and I still
haven't forgiven Daimler for screwing-over Chrysler. Its a matter of
great amusement to me that the Chrysler group is currently carrying the
burden of keeping Mercedes in business because Mercedes can't make a
profit on their own.. in SPITE of grossly over-priced cars.
mst
> > Try a Corvette - now THAT sucks.
> >
> > --
>
> Well it DOES.........for some of us
> Personally I would prefer a split bucket bench or even a bench seat car
> anyday to the most expensive pretentious vain overprized crap like
> Corvette
>
> You totally miss my point.
I didnt miss your point - you didnt
see the sarcasm in mine.
And if you want to talk technical, if you dont understand
why a tranny is where is it and the bulkiness of it and
why there is a hump where it is, then, you're ...
Oh, never mind. Because of your lack of technical knowledge
of vehicles and their engineering requirements, it would
be fruitless to try and explain.
mst
> > What is wrong with split bench type bucket seats ?
> > Isn't also more < romantic > ?
>
> Get a Lincoln Navigator or a Chevy Caprice ...plenty of leg room.
Why not just get a CAT D-9 ?
karen_...@yahoo.com
You are a condescending asshole who talks down to people just because
you got busted in your vanities ?
Hey dumbfuck so what is the transmission is bulky.
Does that make it electronically uncontrollable ?
Ther already exxist cars with transmission controls on steering column
Well let us say you are a fucking know it all.
Why don't you just communicate clearly with a cohernet answer
as to why it cannot be done instead of mouthing off in vaguries.
karen_...@yahoo.com
Sorry if there was any confusion
karen_...@yahoo.com
> like a Toyota Avalon or Buick La Crosse.
Avalon > A Japanese car with bench or splitbucket ?
Never heard of it Are you sure ?
> You might also find a Ford Crown Victoria meets your needs.
I know there are still quite a few American made cars but very few in
mid size range.
BTW I remember this Nissan economy size car Sentra 15 years ago
that had bucket seats but had absolutely NOTHING in between on the
floor
between passenger and driver. Was pretty cool & comfortable.
karen_...@yahoo.com
grown up retards like you.
I am laughing my ass off at your immaturity and lack of respect for
other
peoples preferences.
I realize the manufactureer is selling a fantasy when they sell a car
but I cannot see
why they cannot make it comfortable as well
karen_...@yahoo.com
karen_...@yahoo.com
My question was about why the stupid thing has to stick up there in the
middle.
I saw one reply addressing the question that gives an idea of problems
faced but
I thought these would have been addressed over 50 years of auto
electronics
and mechanics
Bob
H...@nospam.nix
<karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130556011.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It is certainly easily within the realm of mechanics and electronics to get
rid of the console, shifter, etc and move it to a more convenient location.
Almost all the auto companies cluster together in their opinions of
'what we want'. Have you noticed how so many cars nowadays look
indistinguishable from similar level cars in the competitive line?
One of my big bitches is the use of so many microprocessors. It isn't
necessary, it is expensive, and it isnt necessarily trouble free to include
space age electronic complication in a damn car.
Two of the female members of my family have cars in which the cup holder
was a principal issue. Men might snicker at this (and a few women too)
but when you pay $25-40,000 for a car, you want something that is
comfortable, quiet, economical (maybe) and ergonomic.
As in politics, we are served up options from column A and column B,
and we try to choose between the lesser of the evils.
Rick Brandt
I would guess that the reason the automatic shifter is in the center console is
because if the same model offers a manual that is where the shifter has to go
and it would be expensive to have a different center console arrangement on the
same model betweeen the two transmission options.
I agree that on models that don't offer a manual tranny option the reason for
putting the automatic shifter in the center console is the same reason that the
car has a tachometer in the dashboard (recent discussion on this should be easy
to find). That is because buyers (targetted by that model) think that is
"cooler" than putting the shifter somewhere else.
mst
> That is because buyers (targetted by that model) think that is
> "cooler" than putting the shifter somewhere else.
I always thought the button-pushing to select gear
was a cool idea - the Chrysler folks were big on
this many years ago.
H...@nospam.nix
"Rick Brandt" <rickb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lsK8f.7581$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> karen_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I would guess that the reason the automatic shifter is in the center
console is
> because if the same model offers a manual that is where the shifter has to
go
> and it would be expensive to have a different center console arrangement
on the
> same model betweeen the two transmission options.
Doesn't have to go there at all for most manuals, Rick. There are
exceptions, of course.
Some years ago, most American cars had manual transmissions and the shifters
were on the steering column.
Some foreign cars even had the shifter coming through or from under the
dash.
Those were mechanical shifter linkages for the most part, and due to the
turns and
convolutions, they did not have the positive feel that a shifter mounted
directly
on a transmission, or integral with the transmission, would have.
Now, almost all cars have gone to front wheel drive, front engines with
transaxles.
In such cases, the shift lever between the seats is once again a remote
linkage.
It doesn't have to be there at all. It has become customary.
mst
> Now, almost all cars have gone to front wheel drive, front engines with
> transaxles.
> In such cases, the shift lever between the seats is once again a remote
> linkage.
> It doesn't have to be there at all. It has become customary.
A small joystick and electro-mechanical "linkage"
would be a polished answer.
Rick Brandt
> "Rick Brandt" <rickb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lsK8f.7581$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > karen_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I would guess that the reason the automatic shifter is in the
> > center console is because if the same model offers a manual that is
> > where the shifter has to go and it would be expensive to have a
> > different center console arrangement on the same model betweeen the
> > two transmission options.
>
> Doesn't have to go there at all for most manuals, Rick. There are
I was almost certain someone would point this out after I posted. My "improved"
comment would be "if the same model offers a manual that is where the shifter
has to go *if they expect to actually sell any units*".
I believe you can get "creative" with shifting mechanisms for automatics and the
buying public might be receptive, but if you put a manual shifter anywhere but
in the center console you will not be selling very many of those cars.
Daniel J. Stern
> I always thought the button-pushing to select gear was a cool idea
It was, and it is.
> the Chrysler folks were big on this many years ago.
Yes, from '56 through '64.
And the Neoplan and Flxble people have put a great many pushbutton
automatic shifters in a great many transit buses.
Don Stauffer
at rear of engine, or at rear axle. The later arrangement is only
practical on cars with IRS, however, else the unsprung weight of rear
axle is too high. To reduce unsprung weight, solid rear axle cars must
have transmission forward of driveshaft.
Comboverfish
karen_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Why ? why can't you place the transmission near
> the engine and use electronic controls to change
> gears (at least in auto transmission cars)
And the reasons poured in......
Then:
> Yet you missed (or just prefer to troll because
> you are clueless about technical issues) the central
> issue of my quetion.
> Vain moron............goodbye
If a troll catch a troll comin' through the NG...
Then:
> You are a condescending asshole who talks down to people
> just because you got busted in your vanities?
> Hey dumbfuck so what is the transmission is bulky.
> Well let us say you are a fucking know it all.
> Why don't you just communicate clearly with a cohernet
> answer as to why it cannot be done instead of mouthing
> off in vaguries.
Vaguries?
Then:
> Yes I meant the shifter
> Sorry if there was any confusion
Oh. But originally you questioned why the transmission had to take up
space in between the front seats. I mean, with electronics and all,
and *50* years of transmission design under the manufactuters belt, why
can't they use electronics to make the transmission not get in the way
on large powertrain, small sports cars? Certainly that is a reasonable
request, no?
Then:
> Avalon - A Japanese car with bench or splitbucket ?
> Never heard of it Are you sure ?
YOU haven't heard of something?
Then:
> 6 feet 165 lbs
So you lost an inch since the beginning of this post.
Enjoy being a tool!
Toyota MDT in MO
Steve
Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and
nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had to be
standardized. Did away with GM's unique shift pattern (something like
Park-neutral-drive-low-reverse instead of P-R-N-D-(L or 2-1).
Steve
>
> A small joystick and electro-mechanical "linkage"
> would be a polished answer.
>
Or a Rube-Goldberg-esque abonimation. How on earth would you feed back
the feel of the gears meshing to the driver so that he/she could effect
a proper gear change? What you'd have with such an electro-mechanical
linkage would be a "manumatic" transmission, in which case a full
automatic would be just as good. Or better.
Steve
> A Vette itself is moronic given that it is for a juveinle fantasies of
> grown up retards like you.
>
> I am laughing my ass off at your immaturity and lack of respect for
> other
> peoples preferences.
Lack of respect for other people's preferences? Who just called a
Corvette "moronic" then?
Someone's gone off their meds...
mst
> > A small joystick and electro-mechanical "linkage"
> > would be a polished answer.
> Or a Rube-Goldberg-esque abonimation. How on earth would you feed back
> the feel of the gears meshing to the driver so that he/she could effect
> a proper gear change?
You could have that "force-feedback" feature that
some computer-game joytick controllers have :)
> What you'd have with such an electro-mechanical
> linkage would be a "manumatic" transmission, in which case a full
> automatic would be just as good. Or better.
Agreed.
H...@nospam.nix
> I believe you can get "creative" with shifting mechanisms for automatics
and the
> buying public might be receptive, but if you put a manual shifter anywhere
but
> in the center console you will not be selling very many of those cars.
Maybe. Most Americans are lost when it comes to manual transmissions
anyway.
F1 cars have special transmissions with button shifter, generally right on
the
steering. If I were to buy a manual tranny, a shifter like this would
appeal to me
if it did not add overengineering reliability problems.
And I WOULD buy a manual, except that I have a wife who would detest it.
Daniel J. Stern
> Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and
> nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had to be
> standardized.
Actually, popular story though that be, there was no Federal regulation
that did away with the pushbutton shifter. The pushbuttons went away after
'64 because driving schools were specifically avoiding automatic Chrysler
products due to the buttons, and the wisdom at the time was that early
exposure through driving schools, which were at the time rather universal
in North America, was key to generating future brand preferences. Also,
certain loudmouthed members of the motoring press, such as that lunkhead
Tom McCahill, bitched and moaned continually about the pushbuttons.
> Did away with GM's unique shift pattern (something like
> Park-neutral-drive-low-reverse instead of P-R-N-D-(L or 2-1).
Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant. That regulation, however,
did not come into force until 1968. So, while industry practice swung
towards P-R-N-D-L starting a few years before the regulation, it cannot be
blamed for killing pushbuttons.
N8N
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > Did away with GM's unique shift pattern (something like
> > Park-neutral-drive-low-reverse instead of P-R-N-D-(L or 2-1).
>
> Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
> passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
> adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant. That regulation, however,
> did not come into force until 1968. So, while industry practice swung
> towards P-R-N-D-L starting a few years before the regulation, it cannot be
> blamed for killing pushbuttons.
I don't think that was unique to GM; my Studebaker uses the same shift
pattern, and it has a Borg-Warner transmission, which was also used on
Fords, AMCs, (I guess back then it would have been Ramblers) Checkers,
IHCs et. al. Unless Studebaker had a unique valve body I would assume
the early versions of any make would have been P-N-D-L-R.
One peeve regarding this tranny - it's a 3-speed auto, but it never
goes into first unless you manually select "L." I guess the engineers
back then thought that customers didn't want to be subjected to the
incredible pain and suffering of having to listen to and maybe *gasp*
feel a 1-2 shift, but would accept underwhelming off-the-line response.
Now that I believe *was* unique to Studebaker, probably because they
were the only ones that could get away with it, with their light cars
and torque-monster engines.
nate
Daniel J. Stern
>> Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
>> passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
>> adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant.
> I don't think that was unique to GM
It wasn't, but they were the first to use it, and for several years in
various SAE papers they arrogantly informed the rest of the industry that
GM would determine the quadrant arrangement, and the rest of the industry
would follow it. The "no reverse adjacent to forward" regulation quashed
that particular bit of GM bassackwardness.
N8N
I'll buy that...
now here's a question. AFAIK the only early automatics made were the
GM Hydramatic, the Stude/Borg-Warner DG series (and the later, closely
related units that were sold to Ford, AMC, IH, etc. etc.,) and the
Packard Ultramatic. All three had the P-N-D-L-R shit pattern, or some
close variation thereof. Who introduced the more rational, modern
shift pattern and when? I actually don't know the answer, I'm just
asking out of curiosity. Did anyone build an auto with a "modern"
shift pattern before it became clear that a change was going to be
legislated?
nate
N8N
Rick Brandt wrote:
> H...@nospam.nix wrote:
> > "Rick Brandt" <rickb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:lsK8f.7581$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > > karen_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I would guess that the reason the automatic shifter is in the
> > > center console is because if the same model offers a manual that is
> > > where the shifter has to go and it would be expensive to have a
> > > different center console arrangement on the same model betweeen the
> > > two transmission options.
> >
> > Doesn't have to go there at all for most manuals, Rick. There are
> > exceptions, of course. [snip]
>
> I was almost certain someone would point this out after I posted. My "improved"
> comment would be "if the same model offers a manual that is where the shifter
> has to go *if they expect to actually sell any units*".
>
Another consideration is the proliferation of many-speed (i.e. 5 or
more) manual transmissions; for a column shift to work with a 5-speed,
you need a minimum of three shift rods or cables; for a 6-speed you'd
need four. Having worked on old three-speed column shift linkages,
this sounds to me like a decidedly bad idea. Plus most modern manual
transmissions for RWD cars have the shifter assembly integral with the
transmission, you don't have a separate external lever for each shift
fork anymore. This improves shift feel and precision, but precludes
mounting the shifter anywhere but on top of the transmission case.
nate
clifto
> Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
> passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
> adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant. That regulation, however,
> did not come into force until 1968. So, while industry practice swung
> towards P-R-N-D-L starting a few years before the regulation, it cannot be
> blamed for killing pushbuttons.
Now, I was sure that my '60 Bonneville and dad's '62 Biscayne were PRNDL
cars.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
plainoldmechanic
models could be more to your liking. i'm really surprised at the amount
of "wasted time and effort that was given to this ridiculous topic".
sot of like "if a frog had wings........" come on people ,let's let
this thing alone---whadda ya say?
Rick Brandt
In the big picture everything is a waste of time (or perhaps nothing is).
Old Wolf
>
> Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and
> nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had
> to be standardized. Did away with GM's unique shift pattern
> (something like Park-neutral-drive-low-reverse instead of
> P-R-N-D-(L or 2-1).
An advantage of P-R-N-D-... is that you can identify Sloths if you
are pulling up behind some cars stopped at the lights. That telltale
flash of the reversing lights shows that the Sloth has put their
car into Park, meaning they will take an eternity to get moving when
the lights change. So you have plenty of advance warning to select
another lane or take other appropriate action.
Steve
> Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
> passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
> adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant.
I guess that's the one I'm remembering. But low and reverse adjacent
sure did come in handy when rocking a stuck vehicle...
> That regulation, however,
> did not come into force until 1968. So, while industry practice swung
> towards P-R-N-D-L starting a few years before the regulation, it cannot
> be blamed for killing pushbuttons.
Your well of facts is amazing. I guess I'll have to cling to my small
bit about parent-bore vs. wet-sleeve for the aluminum 225 for a long
time before I catch you again... ;-)
Steve
Does ANYONE actually do that? I don't think I've ever seen it except
when the driver is also clearly leaning over the back seat to deal with
the kids, or chasing a spilled coffee, or something.
Now, I'll flick my '69 R/T into neutral at lights to save a bunch of
heat building up in the torque convertor, but I can get going as fast as
anyone else.
Steve
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
>>>>passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
>>>>adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant.
>>
>>>I don't think that was unique to GM
>>
>>It wasn't, but they were the first to use it, and for several years in
>>various SAE papers they arrogantly informed the rest of the industry that
>>GM would determine the quadrant arrangement, and the rest of the industry
>>would follow it. The "no reverse adjacent to forward" regulation quashed
>>that particular bit of GM bassackwardness.
>
>
> I'll buy that...
>
> now here's a question. AFAIK the only early automatics made were the
> GM Hydramatic, the Stude/Borg-Warner DG series (and the later, closely
> related units that were sold to Ford, AMC, IH, etc. etc.,) and the
> Packard Ultramatic.
When did the Powerflite show up? I know it was around by '53, so it
wasn't far behind the ones you mention. Its been a long time since I
saw the dash of a non-pushbutton powerflite Chrysler product (it was
probably a DeSoto with their dash mounted lever), but I think it was
P-N-D-L-R.
Keith Jewell
The VW 02A and 02J tranmissions have an integral shifter. The shift
lever is connected to the transmission via two cables. The feel isn't
bad. There's a weight on one of the selectors to add some positive
response to the feel. You could put the shift lever and associated
mechanicals anywhere, if you really wanted to.
Comes in very handy when you want to convert something to a short
shift.
-Keith
Daniel J. Stern
>> Yes, GM's dumb pattern was P-N-D-L-R, and eventually a regulation was
>> passed that prohibited any forward and any reverse driving range being
>> adjacent to one another on the shift quadrant.
>
> I guess that's the one I'm remembering. But low and reverse adjacent
> sure did come in handy when rocking a stuck vehicle...
Oh, and what do *YOU* know of rocking a stuck vehicle? Have you ever even
seen snow that wasn't in a photograph or on a movie or TV screen, mister
I-can-work-on-my-car-in-shirtsleeves-in-the-middle-of-December?
DS (time shift means it'll soon be getting dark up here at stupid times
like 3PM)
Daniel J. Stern
> When did the Powerflite show up? I know it was around by '53, so it
> wasn't far behind the ones you mention. Its been a long time since I saw
> the dash of a non-pushbutton powerflite Chrysler product (it was
> probably a DeSoto with their dash mounted lever), but I think it was
> P-N-D-L-R.
The dash-mounted lever, IIRC, was a one-year-only '55 item. Don't know the
quadrant arrangement, though I was fairly sure it was "RNDL" (no "Park"
position in a Chrysler automatic until '60).
Louis M. Brown
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and
>> nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had
>> to be standardized. Did away with GM's unique shift pattern
>> (something like Park-neutral-drive-low-reverse instead of
>> P-R-N-D-(L or 2-1).
>
>An advantage of P-R-N-D-... is that you can identify Sloths if you
>are pulling up behind some cars stopped at the lights. That telltale
>flash of the reversing lights shows that the Sloth has put their
>car into Park, meaning they will take an eternity
While I don't throw my vehicle into park at a stoplight, (and I've
never seen anyone do it, myself, ) what's wrong with someone doing so?
It only takes about 1 second to go from P over RN to D.
> to get moving when
>the lights change. So you have plenty of advance warning to select
>another lane or take other appropriate action.
Ok, so you're fairly close to some dude coming to a stop, you see that
he's thrown it into park. So, selecting another lane (and possibly
screwing up the traffic pattern) is appropriate, as opposed to waiting
1 or 2 seconds for the guy to throw his vehicle into drive?
-LMB
John S.
And the really poor P-N-D-L-R used by Studebaker. Actually
standardization of things like automatic shift patterns is a good thing
for most car owners and the drivers around them.
clifto
> Old Wolf wrote:
>> An advantage of P-R-N-D-... is that you can identify Sloths if you
>> are pulling up behind some cars stopped at the lights. That telltale
>> flash of the reversing lights shows that the Sloth has put their
>> car into Park, meaning they will take an eternity to get moving when
>> the lights change.
>
> when the driver is also clearly leaning over the back seat to deal with
> the kids, or chasing a spilled coffee, or something.
I'll do that at lights I know to be excessively long. (And I don't take
any eternity to get moving when the damn things f_i_n_a_l_l_y turn
green.)
clifto
> Oh, and what do *YOU* know of rocking a stuck vehicle? Have you ever even
> seen snow that wasn't in a photograph or on a movie or TV screen, mister
> I-can-work-on-my-car-in-shirtsleeves-in-the-middle-of-December?
My father once tried telling my New Orleans uncle about snow tires. Unc
had no idea what we were talking about until dad showed him the tires.
Unc corrected dad; "Oh, those are mud cleats!"
Steve
>> I guess that's the one I'm remembering. But low and reverse adjacent
>> sure did come in handy when rocking a stuck vehicle...
>
>
> Oh, and what do *YOU* know of rocking a stuck vehicle?
Two words: gumbo mud. At least snow melts... ever tried to get clay mud
out of the tread of a pair of work boots? :-p
> DS (time shift means it'll soon be getting dark up here at stupid times
> like 3PM)
About 6 here... which is still stupid early. I was really hoping that
the little energy "crisis" would give some motivation to the move to go
to year-round DST again like we did in the 70s.
Alex Rodriguez
karen_...@yahoo.com says...
>What I don't understand is this .
>Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and
>passenger ? Even in those cars where the control is on the steering
>column, it looks like the transmission is under the area in front of
>the front seats . Why ? why can't you place the transmission near the
>engine and use electronic controls to change gears (at least in auto
>transmission cars)
Not all cars have transmissions between the seats. On most FWD cars the
transmission is on either side of the engine. On a RWD car you either put the
transmission right behind the engine, where you get the transmission hump you
do not like, or you put it at the rear axle, but you still need a smaller hump
to accomodate the driveshaft from the motor to the transaxle in the back.
>It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a
>cramped area. This sux
Look for a FWD car that won't do this.
>What is wrong with split bench type bucket seats ?
>Isn't also more < romantic > ?
Not as supportive and comfortable.
--------------
Alex
Larry Bud
> the engine (front) and the rear wheels. OR, you can do it like the
> Corvette C5/C6, and put the transmission between the rear wheels (a rear
> transAXLE) and avoid the problem.
Is this true for the manual C5/C6's? Seems like the shift rods would
have to be extra long and they'd have a lot of slop if this was the
case.
N8N
I would ASSume that they do it like Porsche did with the 944 (same
layout BTW) and use a single shift rod, fore/aft is obvious, then the
rod rotates to select which gate you're in (1-2, 3-4, 5-R) however I
have no knowledge of recent Corvette mechanicals so I am prepared to be
corrected...
nate
Steve
Yes, that's true for all C5/C6s, and the shift rods are probably a
*little* longer than a conventional layout car with a divorced-shifter
transmission and a good shifter (think a Roadrunner with a Hurst shifter
and A833 or an earlier Corvette with a Hurst and a Muncie for that
matter). The shift rods just go rearward from the shifter a foot or so
instead of forward from the shifter 10 inches or so. At least its not a
convoluted rubbry-feeling mess like a FWD manual transmission shift
linkage is.
N8N
you're right
http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/072/Page05.htm
appears to have been introduced in 1953; a little later than the three
I mentioned, but the first "true" automatic from Chrysler apparently.
I'm not sure when they came out with the pushbuttons.
Incidentally, in Googling on the subject, the shift pattern mandate
seems to have come down in 1964, which prompts the question, how did
Studebaker get away with continuing with the Flightomatic until 1966?
(the Powershift had a more conventional shift pattern)
nate
Daniel J. Stern
> Incidentally, in Googling on the subject, the shift pattern mandate
> seems to have come down in 1964, which prompts the question, how did
> Studebaker get away with continuing with the Flightomatic until 1966?
> (the Powershift had a more conventional shift pattern)
I'd be curious to see your source on that -- there was no context through
which for there to be any such a mandate in the US in 1964.
Remember, just 'cause it's on the net...!
Daniel J. Stern
> I'm not sure when they came out with the pushbuttons.
1956.
Steve
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When did the Powerflite show up? I know it was around by '53, so it
I knew that because the first car I remember was a '53 New Yorker and
Dad telling me that it was a 331 hemi coupled to a Powerflite 2-speed
automatic later in life. That memory of the car itself is vague, though,
because my parents sold it when I was just a few years old. I can't
remember a thing about the dash, just the blue leather interior, dual
exhausts poking out from under a big chrome bumper, and a pale blue
exterior.
>
> you're right
>
> http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/072/Page05.htm
Woohoo! I just bookmarked that page- don't you LOVE the look of 50's
manuals? It matches the manual for the 1949 Sunbeam Mixmaster I bought
my wife a couple of years ago, except with smiling cartoon mechanics
instead of smiling cartoon chefs :-)
Richard Bell
<karen_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I did never mind.
>You are a condescending asshole who talks down to people just because
>you got busted in your vanities ?
>
>Hey dumbfuck so what is the transmission is bulky.
>Does that make it electronically uncontrollable ?
>
>Ther already exxist cars with transmission controls on steering column
>
>Well let us say you are a fucking know it all.
>
>Why don't you just communicate clearly with a cohernet answer
>as to why it cannot be done instead of mouthing off in vaguries.
>
The problem is endemic to rear wheel drive vehicles. For any vehicle not
designed for very high ground clearance, there will be a hump in the
floor for the transmission and drive shaft. You could move the tranmission
to the other end of the vehicle, which is done for high performance sports
car to balance weight front to back, but this complicates the driveshaft,
as it must now spin at full engine speed.
The transmission is bulky to handle the transmitted power. The more power
that it has to transmit, the more area it has to have on its meshed gears.
A powerful, heavy car (like a luxury sedan) will have a bulky transmission.
Oddly enough, as a short torsoed, long legged 6'4" person, I have adequite
legroom in a Crown Victoria.
N8N
Couldn't tell you, just picked that up in passing while looking for a
picture of the column shift quadrant. This is certainly not an area
where I can claim expertise so I'm prepared to be corrected... and
indeed you are right again..
Standard No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter
Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect - Passenger Cars,
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses
(Effective 1-1-68)
This standard specifies the requirements for the transmission shift
lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of
automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors,
starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide
supplemental braking at speeds below 40 km/h (25 mph).
So there really was no issue, the Flightomatic was long dead by the
time this regulation became effective.
nate