Flight-O-Matic 1st Gear Start

[62SY4]

Buddy, as always I'm a day late and a dollar short (no really[B)]). But here is the scan from an April 2, 1959 Service Letter # S-962, Subject: Fuel Economy In The Lark. I assume this only applies to the Larks, I just have a scattered assortment of letters. This is final page, sorry this copy is really trashed but it's all I got.

[buddymander]

It's surprising that the overall best mileage was at about 30 mph. I thought it would be 40.

[Studeboro]

If I want to start out in first in either of my Larks(both V8 auto's)I shift from L to Drive and have gotten very good at it, and its very smooth, I do not let off the gas and try to judge the point where it would shift, I just keep the gas on at it shifts very nice, I use it on hills and to start up and if I want a snapper start, but I won't mess with either of the transmisions cause if they are not broke I won't fix them

studeboro

[buddymander]

What I was trying to say is that the second gear start transmissions always have about a 3.54 rear ratio, or lower, and this low gear contributes to rough shifting. With first gear start, you can upgrade to a 3.07 and still take off sharper than with second gear. This higher gear will soften the upshifts and downshifts, sorta like a higher stall converter would. It would also make your shift points higher, both on the way up and also down.

[StudebakerGeorge]

Baloney.
Unless you ORDERED a different rear gear, the standard one was a 3.31.
There is no way that changing the rear end ratio will soften or harshen the ENGAGEMENT into either drive or reverse.

StudebakerGeorge

[buddymander]

Put a lil mustard on it for me--But I've actually DONE it too many times to not know how much of a difference it makes. I also put a 2.29 in a chevy truck that had a 3.54, and experienced the same scenario. Much softer drive and reverse engagement. But your point is well taken--without actually trying these different things and experienceing them for yourself(knowing what is and is not controlled in the experiment) it can be strange to imagine what it could turn out like.

[black56hawk]

FYI, Buddymander, Studebaker George is a professional mechanic with 30+ years of experience.

I'm not a professional mechanic, but I do all the work on my own collector cars (nine Mopars and two Studebakers), and have rebuilt a dozen trannies and at least that many engines. I'm with George; changing rear gears (and I've done it several times) won't affect transmission shift quality.

Buddy, I challenge you to offer an actual, mechanical explanation of how changing rear gears could affect transmission shift quality - something more than "I've actually DONE it and I know it works even if I don't have the slightest idea how."

I don't understand why knowledgeable people don't speak up more often when silly claims are made on this forum (i.e., a dented oil pan is acceptable on a rebuilt show-quality, high-performance engine), but it's sure true that a high post count is no guarantee of high expertise. Caveat emptor.

[buddymander]

I have been working on cars since I was 15 and am now 60. I owned a transmission business and have rebuilt several thousand automatic transmissions. Therin lies part of my "high expertise". I've changed rearend ratios more times than I can remember. I've done the same with transmissions with different first gear ratios. Calling my statement a "silly claim" is only showing that you haven't been paying attention whenever you switched gear ratios. If you have very much experience with transmission shift kits, (as I have plenty) you might note that different shift springs are recommended in many kits depending on rearend ratio to avoid harsh shifts. I've spent my share of dollars on long distance calls to Gil Younger (Mr. Shift) of TransGo fame to know of where I speak. It amazes me that somebody can do the same job for decades and not be able to learn anything new. I just hope this doesn't confuse anybody who has been contemplating working on their transmission to soften the shifts, when they may be planning a gear ratio change in the near future, which might alleviate the problem to their satisfaction.

[buddymander]

And in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misquoting me.

[StudebakerGeorge]

Now you are talking about changing first gear ratios?
One more time...this time with more feeling...
BULL....




StudebakerGeorge

[buddymander]

Yes, George. Replace a powerglide with a 350T and using the same stall, you will definitely have a harsher engagement because the torque employed by the .7 difference in primary gear ratio will apply more of the engine's torque to the driveshaft. Oh, and I've done that too. Quite a few times. I actually had customers complain about the rougher engagement. That plus the squealing sound their car made taking off; which was their tires turning. I could usually lower their idle to compensate (rather than go to all the trouble of changing rearend gears) And if anybody would require a (different) expert's opinion, I'm sure they can spell google. I've done my research, I'll not do yours.

[StudebakerGeorge]

I didn't misquote anyone. Maybe someone should re read his posts. Rambling on and on about powerglides and 350's means nothing. This thread was started about first gear start in FOM transmissions. Your information is nonsense and obviously you have very little if any experience with FOM's. The comment about rear axle ratios that came with all the second gear start transmissions bears out the fact that you know very little and probably should not be giving advice in this area. I usually don't post on this forum because of so many of the self proclaimed 'experts' here who insist they are the last word in everything but in this case I just couldn't sit there and let crap be fed to people who are looking for good information about their Studebakers.
BUT..you finally got one thing correct; turning down the idle will lessen the engagement 'harshness' going into drive or reverse.

Merry Christmas to all, I will now go back to lurking and laughing.


StudebakerGeorge

[buddymander]

I'm beginning to understand why knowledgeable people don't always post their valuable information. It isn't worth it to have to deal with the insults and confusion spouted by the uninformed. My statement about misquoting me was not directed towards you, but in your last post you misquoted me twice, so feel free to apply it to yourself. Also, I might not be the only person who would appreciate it if you actually would go back to doing what it is you do best.

[Lark Hunter]

I'll have to side with Buddymander on this one. This is not hard to grasp, but somewhat difficult to explain, so I will use a rather poor analogy in an attempt to clarify. Which will be felt more: Dumping the clutch in first gear, or dumping the clutch in fourth? Which will throw you back in your seat harder: Slam shifting a car with 5.88 gears, or one with 2.73 gears? The torque multiplication of a lower set of gears will always apply a greater kick to the butt dyno. On an automatic, most of feeling of a gear shift under acceleration is absorbed by the fluid coupling, and further, the differences between, say, a 3.08 and 3.54, are more subtle than the extremes used in my example. LH

Straight from the horse's mouth

[Tom Bredehoft]

I'll go with Lark Hunter on this. Changing from a 3.07 to a 4.54 will give you harsh shifts. No doubt. Changing from 3.07 to 3.31, you probably won't notice. It's not the change that does it its gotta be the relative ratios.

[img=left]http://www.alink.com/personal/tbredehoft/Avatar1.jpg[/img=left]
Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe (since 1959)
'55 President (6H Y6) State Sedan
....On the road, again....
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All Indiana built cars