Edwin Pawlowski

"Aeschylus" <winger383@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> I made the original comment about wishing for an overdrive. Since 5th
> gear apprently technically is an overdrive, what I should have said is
> that I wish the Elantra had a 6th gear. To me, it just feels like it
> needs one spinning 3000 RPM before it even gets to 70.
>
> A.

Not having driven one at that speed, I can't say. I'd have thought if thee
was an advantage to slowing the engine and getting better mileage, the
engineers would have done so today, but may not have back in the days of
cheap gas 50's and 60's. At lower RPM, it may not have the power to cruise
at 70 at a lower speed.

FWIW, my Sonata turns 2200 at 70
LeSabre turns 2000
Regal turns 2000

I had a rental Dodge Stratus a few years ago and it too was at or near 3000
rpm at 70

Mike Marlow

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:bhsii.7443$bh5.2807@trndny01...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Correct. Overdrive is anything over a nominal 1:1. Still a very
>> meaningful term today. As has always been the case, final drive ratio is
>> the key, but overdrive determines what that ratio translates to in
>> mileage - and performance.
>>
>
> Overdrive is a term meaning the transmission high gear ratio is greater
> than 1:1. The final drive gear ratio determines mileage and performance,
> overdrive or not. Having an overdrive ratio in the transmission does not
> bestow magical qualities in and of itself. It is merely a part of an
> engineered package.
>

That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively changes
the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I know it does
not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Edwin Pawlowski

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>
> That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively
> changes the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I
> know it does not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it.
>

Mike it is you that is missing the point. I know what overdrive is and what
it does.

My point is, unlike 50 years ago, it is not necessarily a benefit in a car
today as they are designed more for optimum performance at highway speed, be
it the high gear be 2:1, 1:1 or 1:2.

Go back 50+ years ago and most cars had 3 speed manual transmission with a
high gear of 1:1. As an option, you could get "Overdrive" for highway
driving. On at least some cars, it was mechanically activated by some other
means then the shift lever on the column. As time moved on and engines
improved, some cars were given four speed transmissions. In some, but not
all, cases, the top gear was an overdrive gear and it was not an option.
Others, mostly smaller cars, still had the top gear at 1:1 because they did
not have the power to operate properly with anything higher for the final
drive.. They have to run at 2500 to 3200 rpm to make the power needed to
drive the car.

What is important is the final drive ratio. How you get there is not as
important from the consumer end. It may be a 3.08 rear, or a 4.56. It may
or may not have overdrive and no, you don't get to choose it as an option
like you could in 1953. Back then, no one really cared about fuel cost and
the government did not mandate anything as is the case today. Thus,
drivetrains are built to optimize fuel and have as high a number for highway
mileage as possible.

Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original
comment and see how it fits in.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>> That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively
>> changes the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I
>> know it does not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it.
>>
>
> Mike it is you that is missing the point. I know what overdrive is and what
> it does.
>
> My point is, unlike 50 years ago, it is not necessarily a benefit in a car
> today as they are designed more for optimum performance at highway speed, be
> it the high gear be 2:1, 1:1 or 1:2.

It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only
difference is that today the overdrive ratio is integrated into the
transmission/transaxle rather than being a separate box as in the early
days. The fact that it is integrated rather than being tacked on makes
no difference in the function.


> Go back 50+ years ago and most cars had 3 speed manual transmission with a
> high gear of 1:1. As an option, you could get "Overdrive" for highway
> driving. On at least some cars, it was mechanically activated by some other
> means then the shift lever on the column. As time moved on and engines
> improved, some cars were given four speed transmissions. In some, but not
> all, cases, the top gear was an overdrive gear and it was not an option.
> Others, mostly smaller cars, still had the top gear at 1:1 because they did
> not have the power to operate properly with anything higher for the final
> drive.. They have to run at 2500 to 3200 rpm to make the power needed to
> drive the car.

The advantage of an overdrive ratio in the transmission is that you can
use a lower (higher numerical ratio) final drive ratio to allow easy
starts and good acceleration in the lower gears, yet still have a lower
RPM in high gear. There is nothing magical about having an overdrive
ratio in the transmission as the same affect could be obtained by
lowering all of the transmission ratios and raising the final drive
ratio. I think the balance has more to do with the logistics of gear
sizes than anything else. Very small gears driving very large gears
places a lot of stress on the small gear and thus avoiding large
numerical ratios is probably a good thing.

However, the point remains that the 4 or 5 speed transmissions today
accomplish exactly the same thing as did the old 3 and 4 speed
transmissions with a separate overdrive gearbox. No difference other
than packaging.


> What is important is the final drive ratio. How you get there is not as
> important from the consumer end. It may be a 3.08 rear, or a 4.56. It may
> or may not have overdrive and no, you don't get to choose it as an option
> like you could in 1953. Back then, no one really cared about fuel cost and
> the government did not mandate anything as is the case today. Thus,
> drivetrains are built to optimize fuel and have as high a number for highway
> mileage as possible.

No, what is important is OVERALL drive ratio. The final drive ratio is
easily offset by the transmission ratios and isn't the final determinant
of how fast the engine spins for a given road speed. Unfortunately,
some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for overall drive ratio,
but that doesn't make it correct.

Here is the correct definition:
http://autorepair.about.com/library/...bldef-072a.htm


> Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original
> comment and see how it fits in.

I agree, please do this! :-)

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only difference
> is that today the overdrive ratio is integrated into the
> transmission/transaxle rather than being a separate box as in the early
> days. The fact that it is integrated rather than being tacked on makes no
> difference in the function.

No , you figured out what I've been saying. It may or may not be
integrated. If it works, it is, if it does not work for that particular
drivetrain in that particular vehicle, it is not. It is not offered as an
option any more.

>

>
> There is nothing magical about having an overdrive ratio in the
> transmission as the same affect could be obtained by lowering all of the
> transmission ratios and raising the final drive ratio. I think the
> balance has more to do with the logistics of gear sizes than anything
> else. Very small gears driving very large gears places a lot of stress on
> the small gear and thus avoiding large numerical ratios is probably a good
> thing.
>
> However, the point remains that the 4 or 5 speed transmissions today
> accomplish exactly the same thing as did the old 3 and 4 speed
> transmissions with a separate overdrive gearbox. No difference other than
> packaging.

By golly, I think you've got it! I knew you had it in you. I've not taken
a survey of gear ratios, not do I intend to, but they may or may not be an
overdrive ratio. It is what drives that particular vehicle the best.


> Unfortunately, some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for
> overall drive ratio, but that doesn't make it correct.

And Matt would never leave a nit unpicked. (neither would I)

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only difference
>> is that today the overdrive ratio is integrated into the
>> transmission/transaxle rather than being a separate box as in the early
>> days. The fact that it is integrated rather than being tacked on makes no
>> difference in the function.
>
> No , you figured out what I've been saying. It may or may not be
> integrated. If it works, it is, if it does not work for that particular
> drivetrain in that particular vehicle, it is not. It is not offered as an
> option any more.
>
>
>> There is nothing magical about having an overdrive ratio in the
>> transmission as the same affect could be obtained by lowering all of the
>> transmission ratios and raising the final drive ratio. I think the
>> balance has more to do with the logistics of gear sizes than anything
>> else. Very small gears driving very large gears places a lot of stress on
>> the small gear and thus avoiding large numerical ratios is probably a good
>> thing.
>>
>> However, the point remains that the 4 or 5 speed transmissions today
>> accomplish exactly the same thing as did the old 3 and 4 speed
>> transmissions with a separate overdrive gearbox. No difference other than
>> packaging.
>
> By golly, I think you've got it! I knew you had it in you. I've not taken
> a survey of gear ratios, not do I intend to, but they may or may not be an
> overdrive ratio. It is what drives that particular vehicle the best.

Great, I'm glad you agree that your statement that overdrive today is
different from overdrive of years gone by was incorrect. Overdrive is
the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the packaging
has changed. I knew you'd come around!! :-)


>> Unfortunately, some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for
>> overall drive ratio, but that doesn't make it correct.
>
> And Matt would never leave a nit unpicked. (neither would I)

But of course! :-)

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> Overdrive is the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the
> packaging has changed. I knew you'd come around!! :-)
>

But the original subject was "is overdrive needed?" It is not always a
benefit. Not every car has it, no matter the number of gears in the
transmission.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> Overdrive is the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the
>> packaging has changed. I knew you'd come around!! :-)
>>
>
> But the original subject was "is overdrive needed?" It is not always a
> benefit. Not every car has it, no matter the number of gears in the
> transmission.

Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final
drive ratio which allows a lower 1st gear overall drive ratio to making
starting out easier.

Matt

Mike Marlow

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:yRLii.32429$YL5.5763@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>>
>> That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively
>> changes the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I
>> know it does not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it.
>>
>
> Mike it is you that is missing the point. I know what overdrive is and
> what it does.
>
> My point is, unlike 50 years ago, it is not necessarily a benefit in a car
> today as they are designed more for optimum performance at highway speed,
> be it the high gear be 2:1, 1:1 or 1:2.
>
> Go back 50+ years ago and most cars had 3 speed manual transmission with a
> high gear of 1:1. As an option, you could get "Overdrive" for highway
> driving. On at least some cars, it was mechanically activated by some
> other means then the shift lever on the column. As time moved on and
> engines improved, some cars were given four speed transmissions. In some,
> but not all, cases, the top gear was an overdrive gear and it was not an
> option. Others, mostly smaller cars, still had the top gear at 1:1 because
> they did not have the power to operate properly with anything higher for
> the final drive.. They have to run at 2500 to 3200 rpm to make the power
> needed to drive the car.
>
> What is important is the final drive ratio. How you get there is not as
> important from the consumer end. It may be a 3.08 rear, or a 4.56. It
> may or may not have overdrive and no, you don't get to choose it as an
> option like you could in 1953. Back then, no one really cared about fuel
> cost and the government did not mandate anything as is the case today.
> Thus, drivetrains are built to optimize fuel and have as high a number for
> highway mileage as possible.
>
> Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original
> comment and see how it fits in.
>

It fits as I've been saying all along. We're not really saying much
different. I understand well the history of overdrive, but the overdrive in
a car today serves the same purpose as it ever did - to reduct engine rpm
and save fuel. Even in the good old days it served the purpose of saving
fuel. You are correct that today's engines are more efficient, but they are
indeed designed with an overdrive in mind.

The final drive ratio is a determining factor but not the single determining
factor. Regardless of what the final ratio is, an overdrive is still going
to have the same effect of dropping engine rpm's at cruise. That's all
overdrive was intended to do.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final drive
> ratio which allows a lower 1st gear overall drive ratio to making starting
> out easier.
>
> Matt

Sure, but not every car can take advantage of it. Some do, so don't. Other
factors are important also.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final drive
>> ratio which allows a lower 1st gear overall drive ratio to making starting
>> out easier.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Sure, but not every car can take advantage of it. Some do, so don't. Other
> factors are important also.
>
>

Every car is advantaged by having a greater number of gears and a wider
span of ratios. What car would not be advantaged by this?

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Every car is advantaged by having a greater number of gears and a wider
> span of ratios. What car would not be advantaged by this?
>
> Matt

I was talking about an overdrive gear. OTOH, I had a '59 Chevy with the 348
engine, 4.56 rear and a CLOSE ratio for speed with a 1:1 high gear.
Corvette used the same transmission for the close ratio.

Mike Marlow

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:Kw6ji.3345$Nw5.642@trndny04...
>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Every car is advantaged by having a greater number of gears and a wider
>> span of ratios. What car would not be advantaged by this?
>>
>> Matt
>
> I was talking about an overdrive gear.


You've really confused me now Edwin. Stop laughing - I know that's not a
hard thing to do. But - overdrive is always a gear.


> OTOH, I had a '59 Chevy with the 348 engine, 4.56 rear and a CLOSE ratio
> for speed with a 1:1 high gear. Corvette used the same transmission for
> the close ratio.

Those 4.56 rear ends were awsome. Neck snappers. But - they cruised at
about 5 grand at 60 mph. That's a tranny that screamed for an overdrive.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Edwin Pawlowski

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I was talking about an overdrive gear.
>
>
> You've really confused me now Edwin. Stop laughing - I know that's not a
> hard thing to do. But - overdrive is always a gear.

As opposed to a non-overdrive gear.



>
> Those 4.56 rear ends were awsome. Neck snappers. But - they cruised at
> about 5 grand at 60 mph. That's a tranny that screamed for an overdrive.
>

We eventually swapped it out for a 4.11 The other guy did most of the work
just to get it. It was a fast car, three two barrel carbs. It was the
fasted car at or high school and caused quite stir racing a '58 Ford right
in front of the school. You could do things like that back in the 60's.

Eric G.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in
news:Nv8ji.8908$DM4.3335@trndny06:

>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I was talking about an overdrive gear.
>>
>>
>> You've really confused me now Edwin. Stop laughing - I know that's
>> not a hard thing to do. But - overdrive is always a gear.
>
> As opposed to a non-overdrive gear.
>
>
>
>>
>> Those 4.56 rear ends were awsome. Neck snappers. But - they cruised
>> at about 5 grand at 60 mph. That's a tranny that screamed for an
>> overdrive.
>>
>
> We eventually swapped it out for a 4.11 The other guy did most of the
> work just to get it. It was a fast car, three two barrel carbs. It
> was the fasted car at or high school and caused quite stir racing a
> '58 Ford right in front of the school. You could do things like that
> back in the 60's.

You can do things like that now too, you just can't post it on a usenet
group :-)

Eric