| Author |
Message |
Old Wolf
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:12 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:35 pm 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.
|
I guess that's the one I'm remembering. But low and reverse adjacent
sure did come in handy when rocking a stuck vehicle...
| Quote: | 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... ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Old Wolf wrote:
| Quote: | 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 to get moving when
the lights change. So you have plenty of advance warning to select
another lane or take other appropriate action.
|
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
N8N wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
All three had the P-N-D-L-R shit pattern, or some
| Quote: | 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 |
|
|
Keith Jewell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
nate,
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Steve wrote:
| Quote: | 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). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:17 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Steve 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 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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis M. Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:40 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 20:25:55 -0800, "Old Wolf" <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz>
wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John S.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:50 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Steve wrote:
| Quote: | mst wrote:
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).
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clifto
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:00 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Steve wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
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.
|
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.)
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clifto
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:02 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | 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!"
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:07 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
| Quote: | 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
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Rodriguez
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:25 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
In article <1130461717.569262.220330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
karen_2005_zs@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | 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.
| Quote: | What is wrong with split bench type bucket seats ?
Isn't also more < romantic > ?
|
Not as supportive and comfortable.
--------------
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Bud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:03 am Post subject:
Re: Design of automobile transmissions |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N8N
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:21 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.
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in