B/W Tranny

[plee4139]

I have a newly restored '56 Sky Hawk with the B/W 3-speed tranny, which always makes second gear starts. I understand Fordomatic was the same way. Cna anyone tell me why they were designed like that?

peter lee

[Roscomacaw]

Economy


1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[PackardV8]

And smoothness and quietness and a different way of driving.

As things changed, engines got larger and rear gear ratios got numerically smaller/higher, the Ford and AMC versions evolved to give the driver a choice of first or second gear starts.

thnx, jack vines

PackardV8

[rockne10]

Those transmissions were pretty much bullet proof. Live with it for a while and you will love it.
If you want first gear start just drop it to "L" and shift to "D" when the rpm's feel right.

[buddymander]

I lived with mine for a while then took it out and sold it to a guy in Baltimore. Second gear start was a dumb idea for many different reasons. It gave studebaker a bad reputation for being a slug off the line because a lot of people thought it was a two speed like chevy. Also, it hurt studebaker's mileage ratings since they could have used a first gear start and a higher geared rearend for economy. My 3:54 geared GT could have had a 2:73 rearend and taken off the same way. Cruising on the highway would have been effortless. A lot of people would say, "I'm sure they had a very good reason for this". Sure, lack of forethought.

[Johnnywiffer]

Well, the original Ford-O-Matic also took off in 2nd. So I guess Studebaker was in good company. However, remember all '55s had a 1st gear start as did the '54 Champion.

So Studebaker felt it was needed in those applications. And I believe some of the early '56 also had 1st gear start. I have a few NOS 1st gear start Flight-O-Matic valve bodies. Just in case I MUST have one someday in my LC.

And I think you can just FLOOR the gas from a standing start on a Flight-O-Matic and even in D it goes into 1st gear?

John

[buddymander]

Wouldn't you say that it was actually ford that was in good company with studebaker? Sure , just floor it. One extreme or the other. It was just simply a BAD idea.

[gordr]

Apparently the real reason for second gear start was that the 1-2 upshift was considered rather harsh for normal driving, so they simply avoided it by making the transmission start in second gear in "D" range.

'55s had the DG250 transmission, which was not the same box at all as the later Flightomatics.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

[buddymander]

I being a person who has reprogrammed many many transmissions, am very aware of the difference between changing a shift pattern and stiffening or softening a particular shift. To soften a shift, all that's required is to install a softer spring in the accumulator or decrease the size of the orifice feeding the accumulator. I've studied the methods to change a second gear start to a first gear start, and the process is no simple task. So, the reverse would be just as complicated.

[Roscomacaw]

""I'm sure they had a very good reason for this". Sure, lack of forethought.

Now - don't you think you're being a bit rash with your "lack of forethought" remark???

There HAD to be a reason they did this. As has been mentioned, the first of the 56 Presidents came with 1st gear start. Then after about 20K or so, they set that same tranny up for 2nd gear start. Whether you like it or not, there had to be a definite and purposeful reason they did a mid-year switch. It wasn't just some random whim or a matter of B-W running out of first gear start valve bodies.

I'll bet back then, lead-foots MIGHT have taken note, but the average motoring public probably was never aware of the difference.[^]


1957 Transtar 1/2ton
1963 Cruiser
1960 Larkvertible V8
1958 Provincial wagon
1953 Commander coupe
1957 President two door

[buddymander]

Okay, you can go on record as feeling that Studebaker never made any stupid mistakes if you want, but this isn't the only company that made decisions that weren't very smart or made any sense except to the person who made them. I could name a lot more mistakes studebaker made, but I'm sure a lot of studebakerers can outdo me on that. I've seen plenty of companies that had people in charge of making decisions that were completely out of their field of expertise, and , of course, those companies are now defunct. Studebaker was trying to present themselves as a company dedicated to high fuel mileage but at the same time, was running superchargers and low geared posis. And this was at a time gas was cheap. taking off in second gear only increases gas mileage when the rear end ratio is too low to begin with. If studebaker had stuck with the packard engine and forgot about gas mileage (and superchargers), they could have been competitive way into the seventies. Of course, they would be such a highly sought after supercar that a lot fewer of us would be able to afford them.

[warrlaw1]

Now I'm getting confused. I have a 55 commander and the tranny ID says DG 200. If Johhnywiffer is correct, would that be a first gear start, too? I won't be able to tell until I get it back on the road. I have an Acura with 200 hp and a 4 spd auto. It starts in first and if you step on it, it gets HARSH. Tires won't hold the traction in 1st or 2nd, the steering wheel wants to recoil like my snowblower hitting a log and the car isn't moving very much. I'd be OK with a second gear start in that

[Johnnywiffer]

It's my understanding that ALL '55s had 1st gear start but remember, I voted for Micky Mouse, once.

John

[warrlaw1]

Thanks, Johnny. Did Mickey win?

[bob1944]

My 55 Commander V-8(259) takes off in 2nd, I think it has the stock trans. Seem fine for most driving.