| Author |
Message |
Steve
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:29 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Larry Bud wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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.
|
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Steve wrote:
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).
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:38 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
| Quote: | 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...!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not sure when they came out with the pushbuttons.
|
1956. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
N8N wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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 :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
In article <1130554968.565839.157180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<karen_2005_zs@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:44 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, N8N wrote:
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...
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in