Smooth strategy (was Re: Switch Pitch)

[Shannen Durphey]

GM was and is very "smoothness" driven.  Gm's perception of customers,
especially in the Buick/Olds/Caddy markets is that they do not want to
feel any shifts whatsoever.  I will say, after working in 2 Chevy +
Olds dealerships, that Oldsmobile customers tend to be *very*
particular.  So much so that entire days are sometimes consumed in the
chasing of one or two mysterious squeaks.  

If you have any chances to roll around some of the car shows with well
restored examples from the early 40's to late 50's, you'll see that
the upper scale cars were designed to be very smooth.  In the
transmissions, there were vacuum powered clutches, variable speed
transmissions, standard trans with torque converters. Even
synchronizers were designed to improve "smoothness", as trucks into
the 50's were still being built without them. (Ever drive a vehicle
without synchros?) 

It seems there's a sort of balance between the "supply" and "demand"
in product offerings.  For many years, GM (and others) was able to
influence the demand through their supply.  Example?  How many people
realized how much they wanted a minivan before Chrysler introduced
one?  Because of this influence, and the fact that we as "performance
oriented" were a minority, OEM cars tended to cater to the "softer"
side, and their market at the dealership level grew around that.  

Now, I think that's changing, partly because of customer wants and
largely because of EPA influence.  And in a pattern which seems
typical to me, as the cars get more sophisticated, so do the
customers' expectations.  Remember the days when imported cars had
"nuttin buttons"?  They said "performance/mild/economy" or
"stiff/soft" and related to timing or suspension, but made no
difference to the seat of your pants. Regardless, there's still a
market for the people who want their cup holders replaced pronto but
don't realize there's a bad skip in the engine.

And that's it.  We compare what we want to what's available, and as
long as what's available doesn't change, our expectations stay at the
same level.  "Smoothness" has been a goal for years, and many buyers
expect that. Recently, there's been an increase in the "performance
oriented" market, and there are cars being built to supply it.  Maybe
someday there'll be enough market to make classically styled vehicles
with the latest and greatest drivetrains (and cupholders), and then
I'll be able to sell my toolboxes.

Naah.
Shannen


Gwyn Reedy wrote:
> 
> There were comments about the similarity between the DynaFlow and
> Powerglide. I'm wondering if there weren't more similarities between DF and
> TurboGlide? The latter was a no-shift transmission.
> 
> Thinking back about all these earlier transmissions: Was Detroit slow to see
> the need for better performance or was the market all attuned to smoothness
> (or so thought Detroit)?
> 
> Smoothness oriented:
> Chrysler fluid drive
> Dynaflow
> PowerGlide (starting off in 1:1)
> Ford-o-matic starting off in 2nd, kickdown to 1st
> Hydramatic converting to an internal fluid coupling in 1956 to smooth out
> the shifts.
> 
> Not smooth, but not good performance:
> 3 speed manual transmissions
> When 4 speeds came, very high first gear ratios. Nice close ratios, but a
> tall gear to start with. (Was that so the trans cold hold the torque?)
> 
> At least there were manual shift overdrives... (I put one from a Chevy
> behind the B-W automatic in my hot-rod Rambler station wagon once - worked
> fine.) (Don't give me any s**t about that project or I'll have to tell all
> about it...)
> 
> These days the engines are much improved, but lots of the flexibility,
> performance, and economy we get is due to transmission improvements, IMHO.
> 
> Gwyn Reedy
> Brandon, Florida
> mailto:mgr at mgrcorp.com