LOL it explains a few things. I am learning more about members here... like you!
Why isn't there a manual transmission standard shift pattern design?
- Thread starter CharlesInCharge
- Start date
LOL it explains a few things. I am learning more about members here... like you!
Sounds like this isn’t your first time around here though.
Oh it is, but not my first time on forums. I think it is funny you and a couple others keep thinking I am a former member? I will say it now as a matter of record I AM NOT and NEVER have ever been a member of this forum!!!
I enjoy this forum and I have read a lot of great information from experienced members. Not the ones that really only seem to contribute what they can find on the internet.
Even on this thread I read a couple things I didn't know, while I am not absolutely sure it is empirical it was still interesting to at least go . HMM I didn't know that?
All the talk about "sports cars" but no one but you responded on my comment?
Some of the newer manual transmissions have features that take a lot of the guesswork out, including a gear indicator on the instrument panel. I thought I saw that on a Civic Si that I test drove, but it might have been something that had to be selected. Then there’s some high tech stuff like automatic rev matching.
I’ve not tried auto rev matching (yet), but I wonder if it works well with the emissions induced rev-hang that many cars have. I’m a bit dubious, unless if they use a brake on the flywheel or something. [I believe some makes don’t have rev-hang and deal with the problem in other ways? all I know is, my car has it, and it tends to make shifting less fun.]
There used to be one 50 + yrs ago in the EU, 4 on the floor and R was down to the right, then they added more gears and so they had to find a different way and here we are today.There are many gear patterns for manual transmissions, which seems could cause transmission damage or in a worst case a stall, a crash, etc.
Why has the industry never compromised and come to some gentlemen's agreement on a standardized design? Other items, like seatbelts, have standards. Surely one pattern is a superior design for speed and efficiency and safety? The problem comes if you have several manual cars or have to drive many (like a valet, or car dealer, etc.). You have to then relearn where the gears are.
To me this seems like the most logical design. Reverse pointing backwards (the direction you want to go), and to the left of the low gears so as to not inadvertently go from higher gears into Reverse and blow up the transmission and cause an accident. (I think modern cars lock it out, but it still makes sense.)
I had a VW that had the R off to the side, and required a downward push to then put it in R. You could not inadvertently put it into R without a downward push. I liked that feature a lot.
But you have other designs. Going from 5 to R would be a catastrophe.
This is at least safer, but not as intuitive IMO.
I hope your other car isn't a 6 speed...
"No need" depends on the engine and how it's meant to be driven.
On a big old pushrod American V8 with a flat torque curve from say 2000-4000 RPMs, a 3 speed is probably more than enough.
Mix it up and throw a hotter cam in it that makes the torque a bit more "peaky" and for a performance car those extra gears can be helpful to keep you in the power band.
In day to day driving, maybe you don't need it, but I'll take more rather than less.
IIRC, don't the Corvettes force you to skip gears under certain conditions?(and yes I know the ones that do can have that feature disabled).
I have 1 5 speed and 2 6 speeds all different. Why the hate? It’s a good observation
Wish our Nissan Juke had a 7th gear. It is not comforting or economical going over 80mph
For some odd shift patterns I believe the 5 speed 2.5 ton army trucks were
R 2 5
1 3 4
That would throw me way off.
R 2 5
1 3 4
That would throw me way off.
And those 5 speed Macks were insanely wide ratio too. You could eat lunch between gears! No gear jamming with those.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I‘m about to use 3 on a straight pattern: P-R-D
I'm gonna say this again, but a little bigger and bolder for you folks.1 down 4 up is pretty standard in modern machines.
That was mentioned earlier with certain passenger cars. It was primarily to allow for easier shifts between 2-3 or 4-5. Most had a dogleg reverse though.
When I was in HS I wanted a Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16.
Depends on what it is. I'm not sure if it really means that to emissions. I heard that a lot of emissions and fuel economy testing is much harder on manual transmissions because of the requirements for gear selection.
But there are a few out there, including the Honda Civic Type R, Mini Cooper, Nissan Z, Porsches, etc.
Three on the tree when it first was used was considered to be an upgrade from 3 on the floor. The reason being that you could keep your right hand near the wheel when you shifted. It also created more room for the third passenger in the middle of the bench seats which on many cars of the day was the standard seat. Luxury.
Yeah I remember climbing RTE 280 in NJ was a slow process. If memory serves me right it was second gear up that hill. I could wind it out and get third but not enough engine power to stay there
Don
Similar threads
