| Author |
Message |
Don Stauffer
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
In front engined rear wheel drive cars, the transmission could go either
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.
Steve wrote:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Comboverfish
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:29 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
karen_2005_zs@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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:
| Quote: | 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:
| Quote: | 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:
| Quote: | 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:
| Quote: | Avalon - A Japanese car with bench or splitbucket ?
Never heard of it Are you sure ?
|
YOU haven't heard of something?
Then:
So you lost an inch since the beginning of this post.
Enjoy being a tool!
Toyota MDT in MO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
mst wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:05:21 GMT "Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
|
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).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
mst wrote:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
karen_2005_zs@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | 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... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mst
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:48:27 -0500 Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 :)
| Quote: | 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.
--
remove MYSHOES to email |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:08 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:72L8f.6817$BZ5.4717@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:18 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Steve wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:22 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:06 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | 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. 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Rick Brandt wrote:
| Quote: | HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
"Rick Brandt" <rickbrandt2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lsK8f.7581$7h7.4202@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
karen_2005_zs@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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clifto
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:39 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plainoldmechanic
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:41 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
have you looked into the new hybrid cars lately? maybe one of those
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Brandt
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
plainoldmechanic wrote:
| Quote: | have you looked into the new hybrid cars lately? maybe one of those
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?
|
In the big picture everything is a waste of time (or perhaps nothing is). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in