Wilson pe-selector gearbox
Jill Treasure
My dad is planning to build a model of a Wilson pre-selector gearbox,
and asked me to look on the net for information about them. I tried
Google, which returned enough sites for me to reckon this newsgroup
might be relevant, but didn't seem to have any sites about the actual
gearbox and its technicalities.
Not sure what kind of help I'm looking for, but all contributions
gratefully received.
--
Jill
Charles Jackson
Jill
I have a three volume tome called 'The Modern Motor Engineer' by
Arthur W Judge, published by Caxton. I think it dates from the mid
1930s. It has a few pages on the Wilson pre-selector gearbox including
some diagrams and photos. It recommends 'The Daimler Fluid Flywheel
Transmission', published by Daimler for fuller information. Perhaps
one of the Daimler clubs has a copy, or the Jaguar museum in Coventry.
The Heritage Centre is also worth trying. Practical Classics lists two
OCs: The Daimler Enthusiasts Club, tel 01760 721685, The Daimler &
Lanchester Owners Club Daimleruk@aol,com.
Anyway, I can scan what I have, or even photocopy. How would you like
it?
Charles Jackson
Colin McKenzie
London RT and RF buses had pre-select gearboxes. It might be worth
asking in uk.transport.buses as well.
Colin McKenzie
Alex
cars, which
I believe was based on the Wilson design. Would these be of
any use to
you? It's an epicyclic 4 speed box, with multiplate cluch
for Top
Alex
Geoff Mackenzie
why the pre-selector fell from favour. I remember them on various
Armstrong-Siddeleys and Daimlers, and always thought it the perfect blend of
auto/manual. Recently Alfa and others have come up with something similar
(nothing new under the sun). It was also pretty robust - didn't a David
Hobbs run a Lotus Elite with the Hobbs Variomatic with some success in club
racing the late sixties and early seventies?
I also recall dimly that Nuvolari raced an MG K3 (unsure?) in the thirties
with a preselector. Trouble was he'd never seen one before, didn't know
what it was, he spoke no English and the Brit mechanics spoke no Italian.
First few laps were interesting, until he figured out how it worked!
It was also aesthetically pleasing, at least on the ones I had the pleasure
to drive. A small aluminium stalk to the right of the steering wheel with a
miniature Ferrari-type gate. And I mean miniature - whole gate and
gearstick was about the size of a matchbox.
I think the Routemaster buses had a very similar arrangement, although I'm
happy to be corrected by bus enthusiasts! Certainly some buses did.
Nice arrangement. Where did it go?
Geoff MacK
Dan Drake
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Not entirely relevant to the original enquiry, but I'm just curious as to
>why the pre-selector fell from favour.
<snip>
>It was also aesthetically pleasing, at least on the ones I had the pleasure
>to drive. A small aluminium stalk to the right of the steering wheel with a
>miniature Ferrari-type gate. And I mean miniature - whole gate and
>gearstick was about the size of a matchbox.
>
>I think the Routemaster buses had a very similar arrangement, although I'm
>happy to be corrected by bus enthusiasts! Certainly some buses did.
>
>Nice arrangement. Where did it go?
Citroen had a similar arrangement. I had a (late 50s/early 60s?) DS19
way back that had it. The preselector also incorporated the starter,
by pushing against a spring bias at the end of the gate. That DS19
was one cool car but it fell victim to the inevitable tinworm. That,
plus it also used the earlier type of hydraulic fluid that was pretty
damned expensive, especially when the hydraulics were seeping in
several places. ISTR it was 3 or 4 quid a litre, and that was in 1970
money.
--
Dan Drake
Dave Plowman
Dan Drake <ddr...@NOTTHIS.home.com> wrote:
> Citroen had a similar arrangement. I had a (late 50s/early 60s?) DS19
> way back that had it. The preselector also incorporated the starter,
> by pushing against a spring bias at the end of the gate.
The Citroen didn't have a preselector box - it was a 'normal' synchromesh
type with an automatic clutch.
With a preselector, you move the lever to the gear you want, but nothing
happens 'till you press and release the 'clutch' pedal. But that pedal
doesn't have to be operated when you come to a stop or start off - the
fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor as found on modern
autos - connects and disconnects the drive instead of a clutch.
They're great fun - I drove a BSA *car* fitted with one.
--
* If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Dan Drake
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <svt7ht0d6lol4n32s...@4ax.com>,
> Dan Drake <ddr...@NOTTHIS.home.com> wrote:
>> Citroen had a similar arrangement. I had a (late 50s/early 60s?) DS19
>> way back that had it. The preselector also incorporated the starter,
>> by pushing against a spring bias at the end of the gate.
>
> The Citroen didn't have a preselector box - it was a 'normal' synchromesh
>type with an automatic clutch.
I stand corrected. Preselector was the wrong terminology, my Citroen
didn't have a clutch pedal. It did have this cute little rubber
mushroom on the floor by the accelerator pedal that was the brake.
Took some getting used to, as if you put 'normal' braking pressure on
it, the car would stand on its nose.
--
Dan Drake
Leroy Curtis
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Not entirely relevant to the original enquiry, but I'm just curious as to
>why the pre-selector fell from favour. I remember them on various
>Armstrong-Siddeleys and Daimlers, and always thought it the perfect blend of
>auto/manual.
I think it was just a case of fully automatic gearboxes being easier to
use and more.......automatic. Luxury car buyers, which is where most of
these gearboxes were applicable, wanted automation above control, I
think.
> Recently Alfa and others have come up with something similar
>(nothing new under the sun).
They're not quite the same since they don't epicyclic geartrains and
there's no pre-select element; you simply move the lever and the gear is
changed. With a Wilson box, moving the lever has no effect until you
press the operating pedal.
> It was also pretty robust - didn't a David
>Hobbs run a Lotus Elite with the Hobbs Variomatic with some success in club
>racing the late sixties and early seventies?
>
>I also recall dimly that Nuvolari raced an MG K3 (unsure?) in the thirties
>with a preselector. Trouble was he'd never seen one before, didn't know
>what it was, he spoke no English and the Brit mechanics spoke no Italian.
>First few laps were interesting, until he figured out how it worked!
>
Quite a lot of sports and racing cars used Wilson boxes because you
could make a quicker gearchange than was possible with a crash box and
sliding pinions. I believe ERA also used a Wilson box.
>It was also aesthetically pleasing, at least on the ones I had the pleasure
>to drive. A small aluminium stalk to the right of the steering wheel with a
>miniature Ferrari-type gate. And I mean miniature - whole gate and
>gearstick was about the size of a matchbox.
>
That sounds more like a Cotal box; similar to the Wilson but with
electric gear selection and different arrangements for reverse. Wilson
boxes usually arranged the gear positions in a sliding quadrant with a
short selector lever on the steering column.
>I think the Routemaster buses had a very similar arrangement, although I'm
>happy to be corrected by bus enthusiasts! Certainly some buses did.
>
The RT and RTL, the model before the Routemaster in London, used Wilson
pre-select boxes. The Routemaster's box was fully automatic.
--
Regards
Leroy Curtis
Please replace "nospam" with "baram" in my address if you wish to
reply by Email
Peter Adams
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>why the pre-selector fell from favour. I remember them on various
>Armstrong-Siddeleys and Daimlers, and always thought it the perfect blend of
>auto/manual. Recently Alfa and others have come up with something similar
>(nothing new under the sun). It was also pretty robust - didn't a David
>Hobbs run a Lotus Elite with the Hobbs Variomatic with some success in club
>racing the late sixties and early seventies?
Some Riley models also had the Wilson box. I first came across it on a
very pretty 1.5-litre Kestrel that belonged to my aunt. Later in my
life, I drove a Daimler Conquest Century for 12 years. The fluid
flywheel system was a delight, and I still don't understand why most
other cars didn't use it.
The method of testing a fluid flywheel system was quite interesting. You
drove the car slowly forwards, having preselected reverse gear. You then
operated the foot selector lever, and if all was well, the car should
come to a gentle halt and start going backwards.
Someone in this thread also mentioned the Cotal electric system. This
was fitted to some Delage models, and I remember reading that it had to
be operated with caution, because it was possible to select a forward
and reverse gear simultaneously, which resulted in expensive gearbox
noises.
Peter
--
Peter Adams,
Lincolnshire, England
Stan Barr
> Dan Drake <ddr...@NOTTHIS.home.com> wrote:
>> Citroen had a similar arrangement. I had a (late 50s/early 60s?) DS19
>> way back that had it. The preselector also incorporated the starter,
>> by pushing against a spring bias at the end of the gate.
>
> The Citroen didn't have a preselector box - it was a 'normal' synchromesh
>type with an automatic clutch.
>
> With a preselector, you move the lever to the gear you want, but nothing
>happens 'till you press and release the 'clutch' pedal. But that pedal
>doesn't have to be operated when you come to a stop or start off - the
>fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor as found on modern
>autos - connects and disconnects the drive instead of a clutch.
Not necessarily, some cars used a conventional clutch, some even used
the low-gear brake band as a clutch! In fact I think only the Daimler/
Lanchester/BSA group used fluid flywhheels - but I could be wrong!
At one time we were looking at doing something similar with a Mini
engine. Using a de-automatic'd auto box (with electric selection)
and a conventional clutch...the only possible justification for an
automatic Mini box ;-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr st...@dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
Geoff Mackenzie
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a826f8990...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <svt7ht0d6lol4n32s...@4ax.com>,
> Dan Drake <ddr...@NOTTHIS.home.com> wrote:
> > Citroen had a similar arrangement. I had a (late 50s/early 60s?) DS19
> > way back that had it. The preselector also incorporated the starter,
> > by pushing against a spring bias at the end of the gate.
>
> The Citroen didn't have a preselector box - it was a 'normal' synchromesh
> type with an automatic clutch.
>
> With a preselector, you move the lever to the gear you want, but nothing
> happens 'till you press and release the 'clutch' pedal. But that pedal
> doesn't have to be operated when you come to a stop or start off - the
> fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor as found on modern
> autos - connects and disconnects the drive instead of a clutch.
>
> They're great fun - I drove a BSA *car* fitted with one.
>
very rare four wheel version, name of which escapes me? Please enlighten!
Geoff MacK
Geoff Mackenzie
"Leroy Curtis" <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p0MQhC2h...@baram.demon.co.uk...
funny, I mean it! You correctly put me down some time ago re fly-off
handbrakes...)
I recall the quadrant gear shift on a Daimler. Also the vestigial
gearchange on the Armstrong. Also had an alleged Cotal box on a Facel HK500
(1959, bought in 1970 for £200) which didn't resemble either of these. Must
be the only loony who had two of them - one a press-button auto which worked
on Tuesdays, the other with a most bizarre manual change.
Geoff Mack
R. N. Robinson
> could make a quicker gearchange than was possible with a crash box and
> sliding pinions. I believe ERA also used a Wilson box.
>
AFAIR the ERA used the 1st gear (or any other one if you were daft enough)
brake band as a clutch. I knew a chap who used to transport his ERA on a
platform lorry, getting it there by driving it up a couple of planks.
Ron Robinson
R. N. Robinson
Peter Adams <pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FrwGLAAmoMF7Ew$K...@brig.demon.co.uk...
> Someone in this thread also mentioned the Cotal electric system. This
> was fitted to some Delage models, and I remember reading that it had to
> be operated with caution, because it was possible to select a forward
> and reverse gear simultaneously, which resulted in expensive gearbox
> noises.
>
I always thought that the forward/reverse part of a Cotal box was separate
from the rest of it, i.e. you had as many gears forward as backwards.
Ron Robinson
Dave Plowman
Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Not necessarily, some cars used a conventional clutch, some even used
> the low-gear brake band as a clutch! In fact I think only the Daimler/
> Lanchester/BSA group used fluid flywhheels - but I could be wrong!
You live and learn - the only ones I've come across were Daimler group,
as they were IIRC the major user of them.
--
* When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *
Peter Adams
Robinson <r.rob...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>I always thought that the forward/reverse part of a Cotal box was separate
>from the rest of it, i.e. you had as many gears forward as backwards.
>
>Ron Robinson
You are probably right, Ron - the nearest I have ever been to a real
live Delage D8 was when I walked past one on a London dealer's
forecourt. It was priced at £80, so I didn't even look at it.
I just seem to remember reading that it could select two gears at once.
Looking through some of my old motoring books, one says: "Four forward
and reverse", but another says: "Four forward and four reverse".
I did find one interesting quote, though. It is attributed to Sir Peter
Ustinov:
"One drives, of course, an Alfa Romeo; one is driven in a Rolls-Royce,
but one gives only a Delage to one's favourite mistress."
Dave Plowman
Geoff Mackenzie <geoff_m...@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > They're great fun - I drove a BSA *car* fitted with one.
> >
> Dave - would that be a Scout? Three wheels and front wheel drive? Or
> the very rare four wheel version, name of which escapes me? Please
> enlighten!
It was a mid '30s four wheel four door saloon with a sidevalve engine of
around 1200 cc, rear wheel drive. Belonged to some friends when I was at
school. Don't remember being told if it had a model name, but they weren't
very car minded.
--
* I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *
R. N. Robinson
> In article <slrn9h9aur...@citadel.metropolis.local>,
> Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Not necessarily, some cars used a conventional clutch, some even used
> > the low-gear brake band as a clutch! In fact I think only the Daimler/
> > Lanchester/BSA group used fluid flywhheels - but I could be wrong!
>
> You live and learn - the only ones I've come across were Daimler group,
> as they were IIRC the major user of them.
>
> --
also have had access to it, but everybody else used a centrifugal clutch for
road cars or, if purely for racing like ERA, took up the drive on the gear
train bands. One of the idiosyncrasies the pre-selector system had was that
the gear-change pedal travel varied from gear to gear and if the gearbox
brake bands were out of adjustment the thing came all the way up and tried
its best to throw the driver out through the rear window.
If one was thinking of building a car with a limited production run in the
thirties, one of the main problems was the gearbox and the Wilson epicyclic
job appears to have been available at a reasonable price, which is probably
why it turned up quite a few desirable motors.
Ron Robinson
R. N. Robinson
I like that! Doubt if I can still find one for £80 though!
Ron Robinson
Leroy Curtis
Robinson <r.rob...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>
and Lanchester used to aid smooth getaways and to alleviate wear on the
first gear brake band, but it would have been unsuitable for a racing
car due to weight and inefficiency.
Leroy Curtis
<geoff_m...@acsysindia.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>Leroy - many thanks for your encyclopaedic knowledge (and no, not being
>funny, I mean it! You correctly put me down some time ago re fly-off
>handbrakes...)
>
to. I'm not a very fast typist, so I tend to use as few words as
possible commensurate with clarity. I hope that doesn't make me seem
brusque or condescending. It's sometimes difficult to convey tone with
the written, as opposed to the spoken, word.
>I recall the quadrant gear shift on a Daimler. Also the vestigial
>gearchange on the Armstrong.
Yes, the Armstrong did use a miniature gate arrangement, with electric
gear selection instead of the Daimler's quadrant. But it was a Wilson
box with a fluid flywheel and an operating pedal to effect the ratio
change. The Cotal box, as used on some of the French "grands routiers"
such as Delage and Delahaye, was an electro-magnetic system, with no
preselection; moving the little selector lever actually effected the
gearchange. Be cause it had a separate transfer box for reverse gear, it
was possible to select any of the gear ratios when reversing, so a car
with a Cotal 'box was as fast going backwards as forwards. The Cotal had
a clutch pedal for changing between forward and reverse, and I think you
also had to use it when moving off from rest.
> Also had an alleged Cotal box on a Facel HK500
>(1959, bought in 1970 for £200) which didn't resemble either of these. Must
>be the only loony who had two of them - one a press-button auto which worked
>on Tuesdays, the other with a most bizarre manual change.
>
Indeed, a few early HK500s used the Cotal 'box, but Facel dropped it in
favour of the fully-automatic push-button Chrysler Torqueflite.
Stan Barr
Interesting...I've never quite understood why the old sliding cog/syncro or
whatever gearbox is still so popular, it's unbelievably crude, surely
the epicyclic box or something similar should have replaced it after more
than a century!
Wasn't it Ettore Bugatti who said "It's brutal, but it works" or something
similar...
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Interesting...I've never quite understood why the old sliding cog/syncro or
>whatever gearbox is still so popular, it's unbelievably crude, surely
>the epicyclic box or something similar should have replaced it after more
>than a century!
>Wasn't it Ettore Bugatti who said "It's brutal, but it works" or something
>similar...
Worse: it was Emil Panhard, apologising for first introducing the
wretched arrangment.
--
Andy Breen ~ Solar Physics Group, UW Aberystwyth
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed: P. Opus
Alan Teeder
"R. N. Robinson" <r.rob...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b16a0f4$1$15022$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> snip
> One of the idiosyncrasies the pre-selector system had was that
> the gear-change pedal travel varied from gear to gear and if the gearbox
> brake bands were out of adjustment the thing came all the way up and tried
> its best to throw the driver out through the rear window.
Even a well adjusted P/S box can do this.
It happens if you fail to depress the gear-change pedal (the one that
replaces the normal clutch pedal) far enough. The previous gear is
deselected satisfactorily, but the new one is not and all of the force that
the main spring would normally apply to tightening the brake bands
controlling the new gear is sent to your left foot.
To recover from this, just press the pedal all the way to the floor (this
may take some effort) and when you release it the new gear will be properly
selected.
The uninitiated have been know to call the AA or RAC when this happens, as
they think that the gearbox has suddenly failed.
Alan
Stan Barr
>In article <slrn9hdd76...@citadel.metropolis.local>,
>Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>Interesting...I've never quite understood why the old sliding cog/syncro or
>>whatever gearbox is still so popular, it's unbelievably crude, surely
>>the epicyclic box or something similar should have replaced it after more
>>than a century!
>>Wasn't it Ettore Bugatti who said "It's brutal, but it works" or something
>>similar...
>
>Worse: it was Emil Panhard, apologising for first introducing the
>wretched arrangment.
That's the fella!
I still think it would be interesting to try a conventional clutch and
a de-automic-ed auto box...you can get manual valve assemblies for
some yank boxes, drag racers use 'em.
I fancy sequential shift with buttons on the steering wheel - which is
what we had in mind for the Mini engine ;-)
Leroy Curtis
Robinson <r.rob...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>
>AFAIR the fluid flywheel was a Daimler patent, so Lanchester and BSA would
>also have had access to it, but everybody else used a centrifugal clutch for
>road cars or, if purely for racing like ERA, took up the drive on the gear
>train bands.
I believe you are correct here, and in another post I have referred to
Armstrong Siddeley as having used a fluid flywheel, for which I stand
corrected.
>If one was thinking of building a car with a limited production run in the
>thirties, one of the main problems was the gearbox and the Wilson epicyclic
>job appears to have been available at a reasonable price, which is probably
>why it turned up quite a few desirable motors.
>
I have also seen references to the ENV pre-selector box, which was used
by Lagonda during the 1930s, but I don't know anything about it.
Leroy Curtis
>.I've never quite understood why the old sliding cog/syncro or
>whatever gearbox is still so popular, it's unbelievably crude, surely
>the epicyclic box or something similar should have replaced it after more
>than a century!
>
Probably cost, complexity, and the difficulty of having more than three
forward ratios without adding extra gear trains, which is why so many
early automatics were 3-speed.
>Wasn't it Ettore Bugatti who said "It's brutal, but it works" or something
>similar...
>
René Panhard, who first used it.
Dave Plowman
Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Probably cost, complexity, and the difficulty of having more than three
> forward ratios without adding extra gear trains, which is why so many
> early automatics were 3-speed.
One of the first in this country was the GM Hydramatic as fitted by R-R,
and this was a four speed with a fluid flywheel rather than torque
convertor. M-B had the same for many years.
Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of tune
didn't need any more. But they were a total disaster when they appeared on
the smaller UK cars of 1 1/2 litres or so.
Were any pre-select boxes 3-speed?
--
* When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *
Stan Barr
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of tune
>didn't need any more.
Some where only 2-speed!
R. N. Robinson
>Snip
> I have also seen references to the ENV pre-selector box, which was used
> by Lagonda during the 1930s, but I don't know anything about it.
> --
There's a little voice deep in recesses of what passes for my mind that is
trying to tell me that it was a guy called Wilson who designed the sort of
epicyclic box of tricks that we are talking about, and they were made
(presumably) by, among others, ENV.
So probably what I should have said was that the Wilson box, made by ENV,
was available in limited quantities at a reasonable price in the 30's. ENV
also made ordinary gearboxes in those days, and rear axles until recently -
indeed they may still do so.
The epicylcic gear arrangement as such was used very early on in automobile
history as a space saving way of providing an extra low gear on a belt drive
car. In unit with the driving pulley it worked like a backwards overdrive
IYSWIM
Ron Robinson
Alan Teeder
>
> Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:McQZrhHf...@baram.demon.co.uk...
>
> >Snip
> > I have also seen references to the ENV pre-selector box, which was used
> > by Lagonda during the 1930s, but I don't know anything about it.
> > --
>
>
> There's a little voice deep in recesses of what passes for my mind that is
> trying to tell me that it was a guy called Wilson who designed the sort of
> epicyclic box of tricks that we are talking about, and they were made
> (presumably) by, among others, ENV.
>
> So probably what I should have said was that the Wilson box, made by ENV,
> was available in limited quantities at a reasonable price in the 30's.
ENV
> also made ordinary gearboxes in those days, and rear axles until
recently -
> indeed they may still do so.
>
designed for use in tanks. It was built under license by several companies.
Alan
Dave Plowman
Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of
> >tune didn't need any more.
> Some where only 2-speed!
Yes, and Vauxhall tried that over here. I drove a two speed 101 - dead
slow and stop.
--
* Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *
Leroy Curtis
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <3$jnTVIRW...@baram.demon.co.uk>,
> Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Probably cost, complexity, and the difficulty of having more than three
>> forward ratios without adding extra gear trains, which is why so many
>> early automatics were 3-speed.
>
> One of the first in this country was the GM Hydramatic as fitted by R-R,
>and this was a four speed with a fluid flywheel rather than torque
>convertor. M-B had the same for many years.
>
a torque converter, rather than the fluid flywheel being a better
arrangement per se? After all, Rolls-Royce switched to the THM400
3-speed with the Silver Shadow, and 4-speed automatics only became
really common on smaller cars, where they are, as you say, most needed,
in the early 90s. And the ratio spacing on a 4-speed Hydramatic is
dreadful.
> Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of tune
>didn't need any more. But they were a total disaster when they appeared on
>the smaller UK cars of 1 1/2 litres or so.
>
But they persisted with them for some fifteen or more years.
> Were any pre-select boxes 3-speed?
>
Not AFAIK, but they originated in an era when 4-speed was the norm, even
on mare powerful European cars, and the torque converter wasn't around.
Dave Plowman
Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > One of the first in this country was the GM Hydramatic as fitted by
> >R-R, and this was a four speed with a fluid flywheel rather than torque
> >convertor. M-B had the same for many years.
> >
> True, but wasn't the fact that they had four speeds down to the lack of
> a torque converter, rather than the fluid flywheel being a better
> arrangement per se? After all, Rolls-Royce switched to the THM400
> 3-speed with the Silver Shadow, and 4-speed automatics only became
> really common on smaller cars, where they are, as you say, most needed,
> in the early 90s. And the ratio spacing on a 4-speed Hydramatic is
> dreadful.
They switched in IIRC '69, but suitable much smoother changing 3-speeds
had been around for many a year by then. I *think* they stuck with the
Hydramatic for so long because it was modified for the servo take-off used
on the drum brake models.
Again, IIRC, the dreadful ratios of the Hydramatic (3rd just about the
same as 2nd on a three speed) could only be got round with an extra gear
chain. M-B suffered from the same problem with their early boxes but cured
it on the later ones.
> > Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of
> >tune didn't need any more. But they were a total disaster when they
> >appeared on the smaller UK cars of 1 1/2 litres or so.
> >
> But they persisted with them for some fifteen or more years.
The B-W 45 as fitted to some Rootes products was a four speed long before
they became commonplace. I guess most in this country expected a small
auto to be a pathetic performer. But some were OK - the 1800 Marina auto
was quite good.
> > Were any pre-select boxes 3-speed?
> >
> Not AFAIK, but they originated in an era when 4-speed was the norm, even
> on mare powerful European cars, and the torque converter wasn't around.
That would make sense. Wonder if those pre-selector boxes suffered from
the poor ratios of the Hydramatic?
Most autos these days seem to use a form of 'overdrive' for top gear,
both four and five speed types. Must work out the actual maths of
epicyclic transmissions one of these days to try and understand what's
really going on.....
--
* No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple
Stan Barr
>Must work out the actual maths of
>epicyclic transmissions one of these days to try and understand what's
>really going on.....
They're interesting things to take to bits and see how things work.
I started as a teenager taking to bits my Sturmey-Archer bike gears,
also a form of epicyclic box ;-)
Alex
> >I think the Routemaster buses had a very similar arrangement, although I'm
> >happy to be corrected by bus enthusiasts! Certainly some buses did.
> >
> The RT and RTL, the model before the Routemaster in London, used Wilson
> pre-select boxes. The Routemaster's box was fully automatic.
Not sure about that. Perhaps someone who knows the buses will inform? And wasn't
the RML auto a preselector with automatic gearchange?
My knowledge of buses is a little sketchy
Alex
Dave Plowman
Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> They're interesting things to take to bits and see how things work.
> I started as a teenager taking to bits my Sturmey-Archer bike gears,
> also a form of epicyclic box ;-)
You too? ;-) Kids these days don't have that chance with modern bikes.
I've had many an auto in bits, and know *how* they work, but not the
theory of epicyclic gear trains. 'Ordinary' gears are just a matter of
counting the teeth.
--
* Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *
Leroy Curtis
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <F8Mbjucs...@baram.demon.co.uk>,
> Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > One of the first in this country was the GM Hydramatic as fitted by
>> >R-R, and this was a four speed with a fluid flywheel rather than torque
>> >convertor. M-B had the same for many years.
>> >
>> True, but wasn't the fact that they had four speeds down to the lack of
>> a torque converter, rather than the fluid flywheel being a better
>> arrangement per se? After all, Rolls-Royce switched to the THM400
>> 3-speed with the Silver Shadow, and 4-speed automatics only became
>> really common on smaller cars, where they are, as you say, most needed,
>> in the early 90s. And the ratio spacing on a 4-speed Hydramatic is
>> dreadful.
>
>They switched in IIRC '69,
1966 for the US market, (and possibly all LHD cars), '69 for the UK. All
US Silver Shadows had the THM400.
> but suitable much smoother changing 3-speeds
>had been around for many a year by then. I *think* they stuck with the
>Hydramatic for so long because it was modified for the servo take-off used
>on the drum brake models.
I suspect you're right there. When the Shadow, with its high-pressure
hydraulic system came out, they didn't need the gearbox servo drive any
more.
>Again, IIRC, the dreadful ratios of the Hydramatic (3rd just about the
>same as 2nd on a three speed) could only be got round with an extra gear
>chain. M-B suffered from the same problem with their early boxes but cured
>it on the later ones.
>
Which is what we were saying before; difficult to provide decent ratios
with a 4-speed automatic, plus extra cost and weight. Hence the
popularity of 3-speeds plus torque converter
>> > Think the three-speed was purely because a US V-8 in a low state of
>> >tune didn't need any more. But they were a total disaster when they
>> >appeared on the smaller UK cars of 1 1/2 litres or so.
>> >
>> But they persisted with them for some fifteen or more years.
>
>The B-W 45 as fitted to some Rootes products was a four speed long before
>they became commonplace.
Yes, it was pretty good, but it was the only small 4-speed automatic
'box available for years, and I can only remember the Arrow range and
the Avenger using it. BL stayed with the Borg Warner 35 for all their
RWD cars. Ford, GM Europe, Volkswagen and ZF among the other European
manufacturers stuck with 3 speeds long after the BW45 appeared.
>I guess most in this country expected a small
>auto to be a pathetic performer. But some were OK - the 1800 Marina auto
>was quite good.
>
>> > Were any pre-select boxes 3-speed?
>> >
>> Not AFAIK, but they originated in an era when 4-speed was the norm, even
>> on mare powerful European cars, and the torque converter wasn't around.
>
>That would make sense. Wonder if those pre-selector boxes suffered from
>the poor ratios of the Hydramatic?
>
ISTR reading that they did, but I can't find my old "Autocar" or "Motor"
road test annuals ATM to read what they said about the '50s Daimlers and
Armstrongs they tested.
> Most autos these days seem to use a form of 'overdrive' for top gear,
>both four and five speed types.
Yes, like the 5th gear on a manual 'box these days is usually an
overdrive. Four and five-speed automatics have really only become
widespread as fuel became more expensive; I don't think the fourth ratio
was needed for flexibility.
> Must work out the actual maths of
>epicyclic transmissions one of these days to try and understand what's
>really going on.....
>
Too much for my brain, I think. I can just about understand the
principle of the epicyclic gear train, without going any deeper...
Leroy Curtis
<nospa...@cbmsys.co.uk> writes
anticipate needing, the pressing the operating pedal when you actually
need it. The RM and RML were fully automatic, but the column lever could
be used to block out a higher gear, and many of the drivers used to do
this, using the 'box like a semi-automatic. It could be left to its own
devices, however, if the driver wished to do so.
Stan Barr
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn9hmhkd...@citadel.metropolis.local>,
> Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> They're interesting things to take to bits and see how things work.
>> I started as a teenager taking to bits my Sturmey-Archer bike gears,
>> also a form of epicyclic box ;-)
>
> You too? ;-) Kids these days don't have that chance with modern bikes.
>I've had many an auto in bits, and know *how* they work, but not the
>theory of epicyclic gear trains. 'Ordinary' gears are just a matter of
>counting the teeth.
I got quite famous locally as the only person who could take S-A gears
apart - *and put them back together again* ;-)
We must mention probably the most famous car with an epicyclic box -
the Ford Model T...
Alex
> >Not sure about that. Perhaps someone who knows the buses will inform?
> >And wasn't
> >the RML auto a preselector with automatic gearchange?
> >
> How would that work? Pre-selection involves selecting the next gear you
> anticipate needing, the pressing the operating pedal when you actually
> need it. The RM and RML were fully automatic, but the column lever could
> be used to block out a higher gear, and many of the drivers used to do
> this, using the 'box like a semi-automatic. It could be left to its own
> devices, however, if the driver wished to do so.
Quite simply, you lose the "preselect" option, it becomes a automatic sequential
shift. Same gearbox, different operation.
I dunno, buses are not my forte, try me on Landrovers, Bentley S-Series or
Daimlers
Alex
Andy Dingley
>the fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor
A fluid flywheel is _not_ a torque convertor. Treating is as one is
the easiest way to trash the transmission.
BTW - Ferret armoured cars use a Wilson too.
--
Smert' Spamionam
Leroy Curtis
<nospa...@cbmsys.co.uk> writes
>Leroy Curtis wrote:
>
>> >Not sure about that. Perhaps someone who knows the buses will inform?
>> >And wasn't
>> >the RML auto a preselector with automatic gearchange?
>> >
>> How would that work? Pre-selection involves selecting the next gear you
>> anticipate needing, the pressing the operating pedal when you actually
>> need it. The RM and RML were fully automatic, but the column lever could
>> be used to block out a higher gear, and many of the drivers used to do
>> this, using the 'box like a semi-automatic. It could be left to its own
>> devices, however, if the driver wished to do so.
>
>Quite simply, you lose the "preselect" option,
Erm....doesn't that mean it's not a pre-selective gearbox any more?
>it becomes a automatic sequential
>shift. Same gearbox, different operation.
Why sequential? It's quite possible to go from, say, fourth to second
with a Wilson box.
>
>I dunno, buses are not my forte, try me on Landrovers, Bentley S-Series or
>Daimlers
Dave Plowman
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> >the fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor
> A fluid flywheel is _not_ a torque convertor. Treating is as one is
> the easiest way to trash the transmission.
Oh but it is, in the same way as a clutch is. It converts rpm to torque.
A 'torque convertor' is simply a fluid flywheel with extra intermediate
impeller(s)
--
* If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *
Stan Barr
<le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3B1FF828...@cbmsys.co.uk>, Alex
><nospa...@cbmsys.co.uk> writes
>
>>shift. Same gearbox, different operation.
>
>Why sequential? It's quite possible to go from, say, fourth to second
>with a Wilson box.
I'm pretty sure some of our buses were fitted with a sequencer plate, like
some Ferraris, to force you to change only one gear step at a time.
R. N. Robinson
Stan Barr <st...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9i3m7g...@citadel.metropolis.local...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:27:19 +0100, Leroy Curtis
> <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <3B1FF828...@cbmsys.co.uk>, Alex
> ><nospa...@cbmsys.co.uk> writes
> >
> >>it becomes a automatic sequential
> >>shift. Same gearbox, different operation.
> >
> >Why sequential? It's quite possible to go from, say, fourth to second
> >with a Wilson box.
>
> I'm pretty sure some of our buses were fitted with a sequencer plate, like
> some Ferraris, to force you to change only one gear step at a time.
>
> --
Very probably. Imagine engaging 1st from 4th with a governed engine and a
load of passengers :-(
Ron Robinson
Stan Barr
Ah...you've met some of our drivers... ;-)
Porter, Richard [MOP:6537:EXCH]
>
> In article <3040itcmnn92udhgh...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> > >the fluid flywheel - a simple sort of torque convertor
>
> > A fluid flywheel is _not_ a torque convertor. Treating is as one is
> > the easiest way to trash the transmission.
>
> Oh but it is, in the same way as a clutch is. It converts rpm to torque.
>
> A 'torque convertor' is simply a fluid flywheel with extra intermediate
> impeller(s)
The MoT/DTp/DETR/whateveritisnow defines manual transmission for the purposes
of the driving test and licence as giving the driver the ability to vary the
proportion of the power output of the engine provided to the wheels.
This means a clutch that can be slipped under the driver's control.
Does a preselector gearbox with a fluid flywheel count as automatic or
manual? What about semi-automatics?
Richard
Alan Teeder
"Porter, Richard [MOP:6537:EXCH]" <ri...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:3B25D38D...@nortelnetworks.com...
> The MoT/DTp/DETR/whateveritisnow defines manual transmission for the
purposes
> of the driving test and licence as giving the driver the ability to vary
the
> proportion of the power output of the engine provided to the wheels.
> This means a clutch that can be slipped under the driver's control.
>
> Does a preselector gearbox with a fluid flywheel count as automatic or
> manual? What about semi-automatics?
Unless things have changed recently, taking the test in a car fitted with a
pre-selector gearbox, with or without an automatic clutch, gets you an
automatic licence. It is classed as semi-automatic.
Alan
Bob Walker
: Dave Plowman <dave....@argonet.co.uk> a écrit :
I agree, a fluid flywheel is not a torque convertor. It has
only two internal elements, which above a certain speed
provide 1 : 1 drive from input to output - just like a
clutch does.
A torque convertor has an extra rotating element inside
which allows it to multiply the torque by up to around
2.5 :1 (and of course correspondingly to reduce the speed
ratio). It acts as a constantly variable gearbox (ie.
output power nominally equal to input power), which
a fluid flywheel certainly does not.
I don't understand, however, how any kind of driving can
"trash the transmission", especially treating a fluid
flywheel like a torque convertor. In ordinary driving
there doesn't seem to be much you can do to either that
would cause damage.
My experience with a Wilson box and fluid flywheel was
mainly in a Lanchester 14 (a badge-engineered Daimler
Conquest) - very nice!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed are personal. They do not necessarily
represent those of my employer.
Bob Walker, BBC Research and Development Department.
Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK.
R. N. Robinson
Porter, Richard [MOP:6537:EXCH] <ri...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:3B25D38D...@nortelnetworks.com...
>
purposes
> of the driving test and licence as giving the driver the ability to vary
the
> proportion of the power output of the engine provided to the wheels.
> This means a clutch that can be slipped under the driver's control.
>
This is probably official gobbledegook for saying that if you can achieve a
standing start using only the pedal on the right its an automatic; if you
need to combine use of that with the one on the left it isn't.
> Does a preselector gearbox with a fluid flywheel count as automatic or
> manual? What about semi-automatics?
>
Anyone remember the Smiths (Qu)Easydrive? Fitted to small Rootes cars in
the mid-fifties. I think electro-magnets were involved to produce a
clutchless gear-change. It might have worked if Rootes hadn't done an
exclusive deal with Smiths which meant that while no-one else could use it
for x years, no-one else was helping them pay for the development of it
either.
There was also an Automotive Products thing which disengaged the clutch
whenever the driver grabbed the appropriate part of the gear-lever knob, but
I don't think that one got onto the market.
Ron Robinson
Dave Plowman
Bob Walker <rwa...@sung4.rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree, a fluid flywheel is not a torque convertor. It has
> only two internal elements, which above a certain speed
> provide 1 : 1 drive from input to output - just like a
> clutch does.
That's why I said a 'simple sort of torque convertor' as it works on the
same basic principles, since most reading this group will never have come
across one.
A 'torque convertor' is as an incorrect term as shock absorber.
A 'torque convertor' *multiplies* the torque, from zero to about 2.2.
A fluid flywheel and clutch *converts* rpm to usable torque.
--
* I don't have a solution, but I admire your problem. *
Andy Dingley
>I don't understand, however, how any kind of driving can
>"trash the transmission", especially treating a fluid
>flywheel like a torque convertor.
I've never seen an auto with a fluid flywheel, only pre-selectors.
If you try to drive something heavy (like a bus, or a Ferret, or an 03
class diesel loco) away from rest in too high a gear (which is no
problem in an auto, because the box will change down for you) then the
fluid flywheel will slip like crazy - it has to, to match the revs.
There's no torque multiplication, so as well as accelerating more
slowly than a torque convertor would have permitted, there's also more
energy to be lost as heat This heats the fluid, heats the seals, and
if the pressure starts to rise, then it can burst a seal.
There's a reason why, despite being the cheapest armoured vehicles
around, the "Rent A Tank" off-road driving schools don't use Ferrets.
--
Smert' Spamionam
Dave Plowman
Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> I've never seen an auto with a fluid flywheel, only pre-selectors.
The obvious one is the AP as fitted to the Mini. Also the 4 speed GM
Hydramatic used by Rolls from around 1950 to 1969 or so - later on the
Phantom models which stayed with drum brakes.
--
* Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *
Leroy Curtis
>Bob Walker <rwa...@sung4.rd.bbc.co.uk> a écrit :
>
>>I don't understand, however, how any kind of driving can
>>"trash the transmission", especially treating a fluid
>>flywheel like a torque convertor.
>
>I've never seen an auto with a fluid flywheel, only pre-selectors.
>
the GM Hydramatic 4-speed, which had a fluid coupling, as did the
4-speed Mercedes-Benz box used in their cars until sometime in the
mid-60s.
Jim Warren
R. N. Robinson <r.rob...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b265af2$0$12243$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
<snip>
> There was also an Automotive Products thing which disengaged the clutch
> whenever the driver grabbed the appropriate part of the gear-lever knob,
but
> I don't think that one got onto the market.
>
> Ron Robinson
>
Oh yes it did, and I owned one. It appeared as the "Standrive" 2-pedal
control option on the Standard 10, circa 1957.
The electric knob on the gear lever operated a solenoid valve which allowed
inlet manifold vacuum, stored in a tank, to operate a piston which worked
the release lever on a centrifugal clutch (which disengages at idle so you
didn't stall when you stopped).
The accellerator cable also operated a bleed valve to release the vacuum
that was operating the clutch. Low throttle and it re-engaged slowly (for
decelleration using the lower gears). Heavy right foot, and the clutch
re-engaged sharpish for a quick change up. It worked very well provided you
didn't rest your hand on the gear lever knob!
Stan Barr
Don't forget the Porsche Sportomatic semi-auto box which was an option on
the 911 for a while...IIRC it was originally 4-speed then they changed it
to 3-speed! That also had a vacuum operated clutch actuated by micro-
switches that sensed when the driver touched the gear lever. Die-hard
911 enthusiasts laughed at it, but one won the '67 Marathon de la Route.
Dave Plowman
Jim Warren <jimw...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Oh yes it did, and I owned one. It appeared as the "Standrive" 2-pedal
> control option on the Standard 10, circa 1957.
A similar system was the Smiths 'Easidrive' available on some BMC and
Roots vehicles. But of course it depended on the synchromesh not wearing
out to function properly, so must have been the subject of a few warranty
claims on 'B' series BMC cars...
--
* The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *
Leroy Curtis
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <1VXV6.165115$PP3.12...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> Jim Warren <jimw...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> Oh yes it did, and I owned one. It appeared as the "Standrive" 2-pedal
>> control option on the Standard 10, circa 1957.
>
> A similar system was the Smiths 'Easidrive' available on some BMC and
>Roots vehicles.
Wasn't Easidrive self-changing? I remember it on Hillman Minxes, but I
didn't know it was fitted to any BMC models. ISTR BMC using Manumatic.
Leroy Curtis
<dave....@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <g8adit81mq1vhge5r...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Dingley <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>> I've never seen an auto with a fluid flywheel, only pre-selectors.
>
>The obvious one is the AP as fitted to the Mini.
I thought that used a torque convertor, albeit one which ran in engine
oil rather than ATF.
Porter, Richard [MOP:6537:EXCH]
> > > I've never seen an auto with a fluid flywheel, only pre-selectors.
> Dave Plowman replied:
> >The obvious one is the AP as fitted to the Mini.
Leroy Curtis chipped in:
> I thought that used a torque convertor, albeit one which ran in engine
> oil rather than ATF.
It's definately a torque converter, and was the usual automatic box
on all the transverse 'A' series cars (Mini, 1100, 1300, Allegro, Metro).
It's different from most automatic boxes in that you can select
each of the four gears manually or drive in automatic. The gate is
arranged so you can slam the lever forward from automatic through 4th
into 3rd, which is very useful for country roads (you get into third
before you need to accelerate, not after a delay while kickdown takes
effect). In slow moving traffic you can just put the box in 4th and
drive on the torque converter.
Richard
Dave Plowman
Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Wasn't Easidrive self-changing? I remember it on Hillman Minxes, but I
> didn't know it was fitted to any BMC models. ISTR BMC using Manumatic.
Think you're right. More brain cells dying....
--
* Always drink upstream from the herd *
Dave Plowman
Leroy Curtis <le...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought that used a torque convertor, albeit one which ran in engine
> oil rather than ATF.
It's based on my memory rather than a workshop manual, but I drove an
early one when it was new. At the time I had an S1 Bentley with a four
speed fluid flywheel transmission and the Mini seemed the same - it
'locked up' at very low revs, not like a torque convertor which 'slips' to
over 2000 rpm or so. And I sort of remember reading this in the write ups
in the press. Anyone got a workshop manual? Like I say, my brain is ready
for retirement. Like most other bits too..
--
* Be more or less specific *
Andy Dingley
>I dunno, buses are not my forte, try me on Landrovers, Bentley S-Series or
>Daimlers
There's an impressive amount of erudition popping out on this thread !
Maybe all threads some have "pre-selector" in the title somewhere - it
seems to have discouraged Jezza 8-)
Geoff Mackenzie
"Dave Plowman" <dave....@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a8aa0408f...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <1VXV6.165115$PP3.12...@nnrp3.clara.net>,
> Jim Warren <jimw...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > Oh yes it did, and I owned one. It appeared as the "Standrive" 2-pedal
> > control option on the Standard 10, circa 1957.
>
> A similar system was the Smiths 'Easidrive' available on some BMC and
> Roots vehicles. But of course it depended on the synchromesh not wearing
> out to function properly, so must have been the subject of a few warranty
> claims on 'B' series BMC cars...
>
resting your hand on the gear lever? And the Porsche Sportmatic?
Probably find that Lanchester had one in about 1905, as they seem to have
invented most things that are launched these days as the latest idea....
Geoff MacK
zwge...@gmail.com
In order to develop the oversea market, we are current seeking new partners around the world to create a bright future together. ZhaoWei is a right choice and excellent partnership with sincere services.
Company: Shenzhen ZHAOWEI Machinery & Electronics Co., Ltd
URL: http://www.zwgearbox.com/
Contact: Annie Liu
Tel：+86-755-27322652
Fax：+86-755-27323949
E-mail:sa...@zwgearbox.com
Add: Blk. 18, Longwangmiao Industry Park, Fuyong Tn., Bao’an Dist., Shenzhen 518103, Guangdong, China
Robert Mulain
> Hi folks
> My dad is planning to build a model of a Wilson pre-selector gearbox,
> and asked me to look on the net for information about them. I tried
> Google, which returned enough sites for me to reckon this newsgroup
> might be relevant, but didn't seem to have any sites about the actual
> gearbox and its technicalities.
>
> Not sure what kind of help I'm looking for, but all contributions
> gratefully received.
> --
> Jill
I once had a 1948 Daimler DE27 Hearse, which used a 4 speed preselect gearbox, with fluid flywheel. She was quite a beast, and luckily for me, the transmission worked perfectly, without so much as an oil change since she was effectively 'dumped' back in the 1960's - couldn't get the right oil anyway without difficulty (engine ran on straight 30 grade - 20/50 would not do, no matter how much STP!).
She was a beauty to drive, once the steering box was replaced (same as a mil float oddly enough?), and the hydraulic brakes were working (front wheels only, back was mechanical - driving without front brakes NOT recommended with a four ton motor!). She pulled away smooth as silk, changed up and down beautifully, and reached 75 MPH with ease on the A1/A41, though not for the nervous! Only 4 to 5 MPG unfortunately, but a 30 gallon tank to compensate.
Good luck with the gearbox - I was told by an old boy (from Coventry) to be very careful tinkering with it... I asked where the oil drain plug was, and he said:
"Don't go undoing any nuts or bolts, there's one that IF you undo it by accident, 48 ball bearings and springs on this big shaft will spring out of their sockets... and you won't get 'em back...". This I believed, so I never dared touch the thing! All I can say it was incredibly complicated, but very robust, reliable and durable - and I never could find a workshop manual, or anything about it. Just as well it was never required!
I wish him the best of luck with this project, it sounds very ambitious... much respect!
I also wish I had her back... sigh... armoured glass, 1/4 inch thick, chassis built like a Tiger Tank, comfortably accomodated eight people (six sitting, two lying down), hand throttle (disconnected following alarming sleeve snag incident one day - shudder!), and massive 'proper' 17 inch split rims with 1944 tyres that were so thick, you could cut new treads on them (as a 'limited HGV' quite legal, and no MOT required, which was just as well!).
A wonderful machine... sniffle...!
Dave Plowman (News)
> > Not sure what kind of help I'm looking for, but all contributions
> > gratefully received.
> > --
> > Jill
> I once had a 1948 Daimler DE27 Hearse
--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Indy Jess John
> In article<e9682a36-b3ff-459e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Mulain<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not sure what kind of help I'm looking for, but all contributions
>>> gratefully received.
>>> --
>>> Jill
>
>> I once had a 1948 Daimler DE27 Hearse
>
> And the post you're replying to is almost as old.
>
In the unlikely event that Jill reads this and is still interested, it
occurs to me that the London Transport RT series buses had a 3-speed
pre-selector gearbox. Whether it was a Wilson, I don't know but I don't
imagine many other companies made them. The London Transport museum
might be able to help, if it is. The RT buses must have been maintained
and there are probably maintenance manuals in the museum.
Jim
Robert Mulain
> In article <e9682a36-b3ff-459e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Mulain <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not sure what kind of help I'm looking for, but all contributions
> > > gratefully received.
> > > --
> > > Jill
>
> > I once had a 1948 Daimler DE27 Hearse
>
> And the post you're replying to is almost as old.
I wonder if he ever managed it? Quite a feat...