 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2005Design of automobile transmissions
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. 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 > ? > 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.  Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > > 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. > > 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 >> > It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a >> > cramped area. This sux [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Vain moron............goodbye >> > It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a >> > cramped area. This sux [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Vain moron............goodbye Sure thing... a vette with three on the tree and a bench seat...... and you call him a moron.......lmfao! Bob A Vette itself is moronic given that it is for a juveinle fantasies of grown up retards like you. I am laughing my a.s 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 > A Vette itself is moronic given that it is for a juveinle fantasies of > grown up retards like you. > > I am laughing my a.s 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... > > > It annoys me to see a 70,000 Mercedes that boxes my legs into a > > > cramped area. This sux [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Vain moron............goodbye 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 > > Try a Corvette - now THAT sucks. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email I did never mind. You are a condescending a.shole 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 f.cking 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. >I did never mind. > You are a condescending a.shole who talks down to people just because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why don't you just communicate clearly with a cohernet answer > as to why it cannot be done instead of mouthing off in vaguries. >I did never mind. >You are a condescending a.shole who talks down to people just because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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. > What I have always wondered about for a while is about the mechanical > design of automobile transmissions. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 "C. E. White" <cewhite@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. HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article <dTm8f.7398$7h7.5536@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 technical issues) the central issue of my quetion. > HLS@nospam.nix wrote in article > <dTm8f.7398$7h7.5536@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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;>) Yes I meant the shifter Sorry if there was any confusion > Yes I meant the shifter > Sorry if there was any confusion 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. > 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. > 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. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > 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. > > 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. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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*". 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. > 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. > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 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 > 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. Signatureremove MYSHOES to email > 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. >> 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). > 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. > > 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). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 >> 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. > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 sh.t 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 >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 sh.t 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate > 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). > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > 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...! > > Incidentally, in Googling on the subject, the shift pattern mandate > > seems to have come down in 1964, which prompts the question, how did [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 >>>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 :-) > 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. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > 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... ;-) >> 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) > 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!" SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> 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. > 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. >>Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and >>nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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.) SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> Yeah, the pushbutton torqueflite was with us until the Naders and >> nanny-staters passed regulations that all automobile shifters had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >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 > >> That is because buyers (targetted by that model) think that is > >>"cooler" than putting the shifter somewhere else. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. > Try one the large front wheel drive cars instead, > 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. > What I have always wondered about for a while is about the mechanical > design of automobile transmissions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 I agree but the discussion has completely rolled off topic 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 > I agree but the discussion has completely rolled off topic > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electronics > and mechanics 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. > What I have always wondered about for a while is about the mechanical > design of automobile transmissions. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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. 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? > > 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 ? Signatureremove MYSHOES to email 6 feet 165 lbs > 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. 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. >> What I don't understand is this . >> Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Corvette C5/C6, and put the transmission between the rear wheels (a rear > transAXLE) and avoid the problem. > 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > 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 a.shole who talks down to people > just because you got busted in your vanities? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 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? > 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). >What I don't understand is this . >Why the hell should the transmission sit in between driver and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.