Hi John, nice to hear from you again.
I certainly won't argue the point about frugality being a watchword of the
British motorist. Part of the problem was the poor automatics which were
chosen for use in LBCs - again chosen for cost not function. The old Borg
Warner transmission of the '50s and '60s was a '40s design which was
obsolete by 1955 - shortly after many LBCs started using them -
particularly BMC and Jaguar. Rolls had the good sense to use Hydramatic
which was a '30s design but was a superior transmission to the BW.
Interestingly, Lincoln did not use Ford's own version of the BW and opted
for Hydramatic also, as did Hudson and Nash.
An on-going problem in Britain has been the incredible over-pricing of
accessories and options such as automatics. There was serious gouging
going back for years and I believe that it is only recently - with the
onslaught of the EC - that price gouging has been exposed. I've studied
prices for contemporary cars as sold in Britain and compared them with
Canadian prices. The differences, taken as a percentage of the base price
of the vehicle, are shocking and have been so for a very long time.
The manual transmission/overdrive combination was used in North America for
many years with its heyday being the early '50s. It was never intended as
a performance addition here, but was a way to eke more miles per gallon for
those people who cared. Our overdrives were mechanically activated using
cable operation. They were largely discontinued by the mid-50s with the
advent of superior automatics. The advent of the brilliant Chrysler
Torqueflite put paid to the idea of "superior control" from manual boxes.
The Torqueflite also demolished the idea that a four-speed manual could
outperform an automatic. You might like to check the reviews of the Jensen
C-V8.
Because of their presumably frugal operation, tradition and lower pricing,
manual transmissions were the norm in Britain but because of slow urban
traffic, a priority was placed on being able to avoid frequent shifting.
Every magazine of the day gave prominence to the ability of cars, during
road tests, to travel at phenomenally low rpm in top gear or to climb steep
hills without shifting. The usual comment was, "...able to pull away
smoothly in top gear from 10 mph". The testers emphasized the priority
placed on the ability of the engine to accelerate from very low speeds -
thus avoiding the gear shifting which normally would take place had the
axle ratio been chosen for lower rpm operation. Unfortunately, the ratios
chosen were such that the car could easily tolerate this popular low speed
abuse. This in no way assisted economy however, which defeated the purpose
of the standard box in the first place. Higher rpm requires more fuel -
unless there is an improvement in engine efficiency
My Austin A-40 carried an axle ratio of 6.17. My Standard Vanguard,
Series 1, with its 2.1 litre engine, carries a 4.62 axle. My Lagonda 3
Litre has 4.56 and my Jaguar Mark VII 3.4 litre has 4.27. All are on 16"
wheels. In North America these are truck axle ratios. Of course they could
pull away smoothly at low speed. Unfortunately they couldn't reach decent
highway speed without excessive noise and high rpm which was hardly
conducive to good economy or longevity. Why would Jaguar fit a 4:27 axle
to my Mark IX, when the engine had an advertised 220 bhp? My full-sized
1978 Chevrolet van with 160 bhp and a 3.73 axle can pull up to 8,500 lbs
and move a total of 12,000 lbs. It can also easily exceed 100 mph. The
only reason for these kinds of axle ratios was to perpetuate the idea that
a good car could travel at impossibly slow speeds or climb steep hills
without the need to shift gears. It certainly couldn't have been for fuel
economy although that was probably the perception.
My Vauxhall FB is a wonderfully flexible driver but at speeds above 50 mph
is deafening to ride in and gulps fuel in comparison to other cars with
similar-sized 1500 cc engines. My '66 Austin Cambridge Automatic is a very
decent driver but has ill-chosen ratios and worse has no provision for
intermediate speed hold on the very obsolete BW box. It is usually lugging
along in top gear and won't hold a decent engine speed in traffic. It must
be force-shifted into intermediate to achieve decent acceleration at city
speeds in spite of its overly low axle ratio. This was no doubt an attempt
to achieve economy but simply makes the car inflexible. No wonder the
Brits disliked automatics if this was all they saw of them.
Enter the overdrive which was a quick solution to the problem. It
basically added one or two forward gears giving up to 6 speeds to choose
from. The combination was not as elegant as an automatic but added the
flexibility that the low axle gearing lacked. The biggest problem then was
that most manufacturers defeated the purpose of the OD by dropping the axle
ratio even more, resulting in about the same number of rpm - or very little
less - than the car was using before. Frugal drivers didn't want
performance improvements and greater acceleration - they were looking for
greater economy through lower revs. This was not to be unless the stock
axle ratio was retained. Drivers were still in the position of being able
to go even slower in top gear (non OD top) but without the benefit of much
change at the higher end of the speed scale. Yes I know that powerful cars
like Jags could go faster in OD top than in normal top gear but that was
the exception. I also realize that most sports cars could use the
performance improvement and accepted the meagre 500 rpm engine speed drop
at higher speeds as "better than nothing". My MGB has OD and it makes the
car liveable at freeway speeds.
It is too bad that the confusion between performance and economy looked to
OD as the solution. It was a solution for some things but could perhaps
have been better understood and better supported with a choice of axle
ratios which might have allowed the driver to plan his own choice of
gearing. It is a further pity that decent automatic transmissions were
never made available in Britain, in order to allow their widespread use and
permit their sale at competitive prices. In North America, for many years,
manual transmissions have been higher-priced options on most cars with
automatics being the standard equipment.
I've owned all types of transmissions, with the exception of the DAF type
variable ratio, and most brands of cars. I've owned and driven the
earliest automatics and the latest types as well. I've owned and driven
various types of cars with overdrives both electrical and mechanical and
I've owned and driven cars with automatic free wheel. I've also owned and
driven most types of four-wheel drive. I've driven in heavy urban traffic,
on high speed freeways and off road. I've done it in heavy winter and
extreme summer conditions. I've towed trailers of all kinds ranging from
light utility to heavy travel trailers and I've towed plenty of cars on
trailers of all sorts.
My conclusion is that the automatic transmission is superior to the manual
transmission and has been for nearly 50 years in North America. A properly
maintained automatic transmission will outlast a clutch/OD/manal
transmission when comparing the same two automobiles - each equipped with
one or the other. The engine of the automatic car will also outlast the
engine of the manual car due to the easier load placed on it. The overall
cost of operation of the two cars after a period of years will show that
the automatic car was cheaper to operate and maintain than the other.
As to the idea that the manual transmission provides better control over
the automatic, I would like to point out that trailer-towing load ratings
are higher for automatic-equipped towing vehicles than they are for the
same vehicle if equipped with a manual transmission. This is because the
automatic provides greater flexibility, smoother starting off and superior
transmission ratios than the other. Any modern automatic provides
downshift braking just as the manual does and adds the advantage of a
positive transmission lock which the standard does not possess. Automatics
are more flexible on snowy and icy roads and much more capable of starting
off and maintaining speed under very adverse conditions. Today's modern
transmissions also add the benefit of fourth gears and locking torque
convertors which add as much as a 20% reduction in overall rpm at speed,
while retaining the comfortable operation in heavy traffic which is so
tiring with a standard box.
Just my dollar's worth of comment,
John
|