Re: 3 speed or 4 speed foe a lebaron?

Yep. We need to get back to the ruggedness and dependability we had in Chrysler automatics by 1964 and in most all US-designed automatic transmissions in 1970.

Absurd? That 3-speed was one of the more reliable FWD automatic transmissions available on the US market in 2000.

Increased complexity, increased cost, decreased durability and marginal gains.

Every time I drive my '62 Dodge (225 slant-6, pushbutton-operated 3-speed Torqueflite) I am re-amazed at how terrific a transmission it is. It is smooth, quiet, highly efficient and programmed well enough to pick the right gear, right away, at the right time.

DS

Which other companies have a 6 or 7 speed automatic transmission in their entry level $13,000 vehicle?

Matt

Yes, but the slant-6 actually has meaning torque at something less than redline, unlike many of the "modern" V-6 engines. Give me an inline 6 any day. I'm glad to see Chevy go back to that in some of their newer SUVs and small pickups.

Matt

Give me a 3 speed Chryco automatic over their 4 speed model any day of the week. They are, on the whole, a much more robust system, being a totally hydraulic/mechanical system instead of electronic. Also a whole lot less expensive to repair when the time comes.

The Neon engine is flexible enough to provide more than adequate performance across it's operating range with a 3 speed. It is a bit busier on the highway, but not offensively so at legal North American highway speeds.

I just sold my '88 New Yorker 3 speed. The original gearbox wentover

180,000Km before it suffered a differential bearing failure that caused me to replace the transmission - otherwise it was still functioning very well. Not too many Chryco 4 speeds get that far.

3 Speed is not UpToDate anymore. If you want to drive from 1 to 130 miles you need more than 3.

True, you cant get a 6 or 7 speed in an entry leven car. But as far as I know did no other car manufacturer in the world 3 speeds anymore. God, I once hat an Mercedes from 1965 which had 4 speeds.....

Yes, I was pretty sure that you were blowing smoke about the 6 and 7 speed automatics. I've heard of very few of them and then only on very expensive cars.

It really depends a lot on the engine. An engine with a broad torque curve can get by quite nicely on 3 or 4 speeds. GM got by for many years with 2 speeds. More speeds might have a small advantage for cars with narrow "peaky" torque curves, but I wonder if the extra weight and cost really are worth it.

Matt

you sound like a 4 speed automatic is so much heavier then a old fashion 3 speed. well, i dont know the facts in this case, but i doubt that. at least can the difference not be significant.

and the times of 2 speeds are long gone, thank god.

I agree, you don't know the facts. More gears = more weight and more complexity. It is inescapable. Now, the transmission CAN be kept the same weight as gears are added, but only by making the parts inside individually lighter to account for the fact that you have more parts. This makes the transmission less robust and less reliable. Hmmm... Seems like the newer 4 speeds are less reliable than the 3 speeds. Hmmm...

The GM 2 speed behind a 327 was a great combination.

Matt

I am so glad that you do :-)

We are talking about cars here.

50, even 100 pounds more would not really matter.

Where do you guys live? In the stone age? Here we are in the 21 century and some people want to keep 2 speed automatics. amazing.

The fact that some (not all) transmissions are not as reliable anymore is more because of the quality of production and parts and not related to the fact of more speeds.

Well, I disagree here. Modern manufacturing quality is higher than ever in the auto industry and we have the best materials today that we've ever had. The main issue is that cars are FAR more complex than they were 40 or even 20 years ago. If you knew anything at all about reliability, you would know that even with a low probability of failure (high MTBF) for each part, when you have hundreds or thousands of parts, the overall probability of failure of the system can get pretty high.

Matt

Ok, so what do you recomment? To built cars like 40 years ago? Without power steering and with 2 speeds?

You knew anything at all about marketing you would know that companies today have very little interest in cars that never break down. Because the main goal is to sell another car after a couple of years. No matter how good the materials are. Not only cars but all products are in fact construction to fail rather than constructed to last.

I don't recomment anything, but I recommend that we not keep adding additional speeds to automatic transmissions as you suggest. 6 or 7 speeds is ridiculous unless you are running a tiny engine that has a 500 RPM wide useful torque band.

4 speeds is quite enough for most cars and some might benefit from 5, but 6 is crazy, especially since the TCC effectively gives you another gear anyway so current 4 speeds effectively have 5 speeds. I'd rather see the automakers spend their development dollars making the current 4 speeds more reliable than worrying about cramming 2-3 more gears into the tranny when the benefit is negligible.

I never said to build cars like we did 40 years ago. I just said that some things from years ago were good enough and we don't need to keep making the numbers bigger for its own sake.

And if you knew anything about marketing you would know that they do. Toyota has become one of the world's largest and most profitable automakers largely based on making very reliable cars. They certainly aren't stylish or exciting.

Yes, but the way to sell another car is to have previous buyers buy again and recommend your brand. Making crappy cars isn't the way to get future sales.

A very simplistic view that shows profound lack of understanding. Cars are a balance of many things, and longevity is one of them. You couldn't afford to buy a car that was built to last forever. However, some car makers are able to make cars that cost a reasonable amount yet still last a long time.

Matt

sure, reliable is what we all want and need, but the extra gears do not make the transmission less reliable if built well. more gears are a must for a engine to operate in am absolute optimum and extemely efficent. example: the mcc smart from daimlerchrysler is one of the most energy efficent cars on the planet: 6 speeds why? because no matter what speed (within it's limits) the engine operates within it's power/gasusage optimum.

reliability: mercedes builts the 6 and up speed automatic since years and they are NO signs of less reliability at all. i drove a mercedes E240 automatic with 5 speeds myselfs for over 50000 miles with no sign of weakness. Why? because mercedes is one of the last (of the last) car manufaturers that actually builts there transmissions themself. and they always meet their high standards. of course, there is a higher price.....

toyota: good cars up to the age of 5 to 8 years. but don't try to use this kind of cars longer than this.

that is the trick about it. try to built a great car for 5 to 10 years and then let it break down asap. this is no secret. this is common understanding. washing maschines are not supposed to operate longer than 5 years, tv no longer than 5 years and the lifeline of a car, depending of it's make should be between 5 (hyundai/deawoo) and 15 (mercedes/cadillac) years.

Not true. There's only a limited amount of space for a transmission. If your

4 speed transmission has used all available space and you add in more gears to the same space, your going to have to make those gears smaller or thinner or your going to have to make some other part smaller or thinner to fit all that in there. While better materials can allow you to do this, they can only do so up to a point. Ultimately, the more meat on the parts the more reliable.

Ted

who says that a transmission cant be bigger??? not every car manufacturer uses tranaxle style builts.