the drama of 3-speed automatic
Discussion
For me it has to be a memory from childhood as I'm too young to have had any significant ownership experience of a car with a 3-speed automatic.
I remember clearly from cars my dad had and some others the massive effect of flooring the pedal in a 3-speed automatic.
First of all there's a little 'huff' as the revs immediately pick up the slack in the torque converter. Then a somewhat silent gap as the box downshifts. Then the revs go from cruising rpm in the lower third to the upper 3rd of the range almost straight away with the dramatically different ratios. The back of the car drops and the nose picks up and you head for the redline... quite slowly with loads of noise because of the long ratios.
Cars don't really do that sort of thing so much these days.
I remember clearly from cars my dad had and some others the massive effect of flooring the pedal in a 3-speed automatic.
First of all there's a little 'huff' as the revs immediately pick up the slack in the torque converter. Then a somewhat silent gap as the box downshifts. Then the revs go from cruising rpm in the lower third to the upper 3rd of the range almost straight away with the dramatically different ratios. The back of the car drops and the nose picks up and you head for the redline... quite slowly with loads of noise because of the long ratios.
Cars don't really do that sort of thing so much these days.
LeeM135i said:
I remember my Nan having a sandy beige coloured Austin Allegro with an auto box, if you floored the throttle it got louder, not faster. That's 60ish?? BHP and a 3/4 speed auto for you.
My aunt used to drive us all in an early Volvo 240 estate... out in the country where you had to overtake. They could be crap but in an amusing way if they were behind a huge engine making the thick end of 300bhp, like a Jaguar V12 or a Porsche 928, with the whole "ding ding ding engine room full power please" style delay between booting it and seeing anything happen but in peasant cars they were utterly tragic. My XJR-S could go from nothing to about a ton in 2nd, the only way to drive it briskly was to lock it into 2nd and treat it as a one gear car.
Same goes for a four speeder tbh, it was OK on a big six but dismal on your grandfathers 1.6 Astra. I think the reason a lot of middle aged and upwards people won't consider an auto is because they used to be so bad.
Same goes for a four speeder tbh, it was OK on a big six but dismal on your grandfathers 1.6 Astra. I think the reason a lot of middle aged and upwards people won't consider an auto is because they used to be so bad.
sociopath said:
What your memory isn't telling you is that it felt like that because they were s
t (and the gap between gears was huge)
I wouldn't say they are st (and the gap between gears was huge) t. Until recently I was daily driving a 2008 Crown Victoria with a 3 Speed Auto (+ Overdrive).
Far from the most cutting-edge gearbox, but when cruising it was very smooth and when pressing on, while it wasn't fast, it wasn't that slow. The characteristics of the gearbox were actually quite enjoyable.
P675 said:
Were old autos all mechanical? No electronics to control things?
Entirely mechanical/hydraulic in operation. The first electronically controlled boxes were 4 speeders like the ZF4HP24E and the GM4L80E. They were a big improvement over the older boxes and added things like sports mode and the ability to ask the ECU to retard the ignition during shifts to make them a bit smoother.The 5 speed boxes felt much like the 4 speeders to use, better spread of gears to make them sharper off the line and less busy at speed, but something like a Mercedes 5G, ZF5, of the AW5 in FWD cars feels very old fashioned now in the way it responds and shifts, the real leap towards "modern" style quick shifting responsive autos came with the 6+ speed boxes in the early 00s.
Old cars definately had more drama to drive, no sophisticated anti dive and squat multilink suspension, much less effective anti roll bars, softer suspension overall. No stability to wind it back safely, you used to see lots of fishtailing after the back end went.
The engines were much better sounding with no catalytic convertors in the exhaust path, and induction roar through carbs was glorious.
The interior had less sound proofing and they were not nearly as air tight, so more engine noise in the cabin, and greater sensation of speed.
The glass house of older cars was much more open, much less cocooning and you felt closer to the action.
Steering feel in the pre-power era, although it was a pain at parking speeds and when trying to wind on lots of lock quickly, was in a completely different league to modern cars, even good hydraulic systems, and the tyres were much more elastic and gave a better feel due to higher sidewalls.
The brakes ...well actually I think a lot of progress has been made on brakes, the best modern systems are far better than the older systems. I do think there are a lot of over servoed systems in the lower end of the market that could learn a lot from the pedal feel of an older car.
Modern cars are faster, more reliable, more efficient, however they definitely lack many of the positive attributes of older cars.
The engines were much better sounding with no catalytic convertors in the exhaust path, and induction roar through carbs was glorious.
The interior had less sound proofing and they were not nearly as air tight, so more engine noise in the cabin, and greater sensation of speed.
The glass house of older cars was much more open, much less cocooning and you felt closer to the action.
Steering feel in the pre-power era, although it was a pain at parking speeds and when trying to wind on lots of lock quickly, was in a completely different league to modern cars, even good hydraulic systems, and the tyres were much more elastic and gave a better feel due to higher sidewalls.
The brakes ...well actually I think a lot of progress has been made on brakes, the best modern systems are far better than the older systems. I do think there are a lot of over servoed systems in the lower end of the market that could learn a lot from the pedal feel of an older car.
Modern cars are faster, more reliable, more efficient, however they definitely lack many of the positive attributes of older cars.
I've used three-speed autos quite a bit and can't say that an extra gear or a manual would have made any difference for my purposes. The three speed was fine in things like the XJS V12, Bristols and RR/Bentleys, where there wasn't a manual option. With the Interceptor, 928 and Ferrari 400 there was a manual option, but the majority were nevertheless specced as autos. Quite a lot of Astons too. This may have puzzled some motoring journalists at the time, but, not only did their preferences clearly not reflect those of the average buyer, they were also too poor to ever buy one, so it didn't matter 
With these cars, you're either travelling at warp speed in a straight line for hours and won't need to change gear much, or you're pottering about town, and won't want to.
I want versatility. With an auto Ferrari, I'm not fussed if I get stuck in an hour of stop-start traffic. I wouldn't fancy that with a manual. I recall reading a post on Fchat by someone who had two Ferrari 400s at the same time, a manual and an auto, and they got rid of the manual because they weren't using it as much.
And, when you floor it and it kickdowns to second and really takes off, it's pretty hilarious.
With these cars, you're either travelling at warp speed in a straight line for hours and won't need to change gear much, or you're pottering about town, and won't want to. I want versatility. With an auto Ferrari, I'm not fussed if I get stuck in an hour of stop-start traffic. I wouldn't fancy that with a manual. I recall reading a post on Fchat by someone who had two Ferrari 400s at the same time, a manual and an auto, and they got rid of the manual because they weren't using it as much.
And, when you floor it and it kickdowns to second and really takes off, it's pretty hilarious.
Edited by Rumdoodle on Tuesday 25th October 15:33
TREMAiNE said:
sociopath said:
What your memory isn't telling you is that it felt like that because they were st (and the gap between gears was huge)
I wouldn't say they are st (and the gap between gears was huge) t. Until recently I was daily driving a 2008 Crown Victoria with a 3 Speed Auto (+ Overdrive).
Far from the most cutting-edge gearbox, but when cruising it was very smooth and when pressing on, while it wasn't fast, it wasn't that slow. The characteristics of the gearbox were actually quite enjoyable.
s
t is of course personal opinion, and mine is the 3 gear versions were.Then again I only really had experience of old Fords and vauxhalla, by the time I got to afford a jag they had more gears
ZedLeg said:
P675 said:
Were old autos all mechanical? No electronics to control things?
torque converter autos are hydraulic, it's all controlled by adjusting ATF pressure.I remember dismantling Torqueflite A727 three-speed "Range Rover" gearboxes which had been modified by Alistair Wardock for use in our Bowler racer, I think one had cooked the clutch plates and we needed it rebuilt quickly so DIY...
An American friend used to have a C4 Corvette which while a 4-speed auto had the same gearchange response. Start crusing at 30MPH, floor the loud pedal, listen to the engine make more noise, watch the digical MPG gauge drop to "0 MPG", get whiplash as the sluchbox drops a gear, marvle that nothing has actually changed about the cars speed, another bout of whiplash into 2nd and then, and only then do you get puched back in your seet as the lady lifts her skirts 
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff