The preselector gearbox
 

1st... for the moment I don't posses a driving licence, but I hope I will get one. So I can't tell from an exactly point of view how driving a manual gearbox car is, but for me it seems hard to move the shifter and press the clutch pedal is the same time (especially when the shifter is mounted on the floor).
The automatic looks more nice.
Long time ago, I've heard on a series of documentaries broacasted by "Discovery" Chanel about preselector gearboxes, but during the time, I forgot about them. While having curiosities about British automobiles I rediscoverd them.
In U.S.A. you had the "Cord": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aozO4Wk9l0
But there wasn't to much interes for the car unfourtenley (the gerabox wasn't relaible either).

In Europe, automobiles (and some buses) had Wilson preslect type gerabox.
Especilly British made, but "Talbot" from France (there was also a British "Talbot"). This was used up the to the '50's. https://daimlerandlanchester.com/how...-pre-selector/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JLzjwUyb-E&t=211s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou_p3Y_oZMg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loXi_009EiE&t=265s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ604sMV3Dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6P5ycxnHTI

Well, excpet for the fact the steering wheel is on the right side, for me, as a potential drivers this gerabox system looks intresting. Both "Cord" and "Wilson". Easy to move the gear lever (especially at Wilson, where you have a contiunius move, no side moving), near the steering wheel, you don't have to push the pedal in the same time.
I don't know if I would ever have the chance to drive such a car, but I'm curios how many of you did know about this type of gerabox.
It's a pitty they didn't countinued with the ideea.

There's one in a '39 Daimler Drophead Coupe ('43? chassis) about a block down the street from me. I've been offered the chance to drive it this summer. (Date explanation: pre-war body, post-war running gear/frame. Seems there was some local unpleasantness in the interim.)

I didn't watch all the vids you mentioned, but the Daimler site seems spot on with the driving instructions I was given last year. (Could have driven it last year, but I had limited available time, and didn't want to rush thru the transmission plus get my head around the whole right-hand-drive detail.


http://videokarma.org/attachment.php...1&d=1555804440

"Daimler" used this gearbox in some postwar models too. They where luxury cars.
In Romania there was a "Daimler" with preselector (car rented for weddings), but the small firm that had it seems to be out of business. It wans't from Bucharest or a nearby place...

:cool: Hello Telecolor ,

I know when you've never done it before it looks challenging , but believe me once you get your driver's license if you did drive a manual shift car you'd be banging through the gears like a pro in a week or two's time . The thing is , ANY kind of "slushbox" (automatic shift transmission) robs power from the engine to do it's automatic shifting and a given car with a manual will be quicker than an automatic . Now I'm sure some are gonna argue that the modern automatic is very close to the performance of a manual , but that pesky torque converter with it's 12 (ish) percent slip* simply cannot deliver 100% of the engine's power to the rest of the drivetrain like a fully engaged clutch can . Look into the motorcycle world , there is not one serious "crotch rocket" (performance motorcycle for street use) being sold with an automatic transmission and those few seconds of performance lost to the torque converter are the reason why . In my opinion there is only one situation whee the automatic beats the manual ; heavy stop & go traffic jams ....


* Yes I fully realize modern torque converters "lock up" (become a straight through coupling with no slip) at a pre determined road speed , but "off the line" where seconds count the torque converter's slip is present and robbing some of those precious seconds .

I know it takes from power, but I like the command of it.

Well the preselector gearbox was a fascinating concept. The Tucker also had one (it was literally just a Cord's transmission). But I think it fell out of favor for a couple of reasons, at least in America (which typically led the world in automotive stuff back in the day). First, the preselector was generally a complicated setup that lent itself to being a 'luxury' option for a car, well, only something available on one expensive car in America, anyway. Cord went out of business in the late 30s, I believe, and when the time came that some other companies might make their own preselectors, they were a little busy building tanks for the war. After that, they were really trying to get by with the old shit they had before the war. But then, automatic transmissions started becoming available, and those became the luxury option, so there was really no need (from a business point of view) to justify selling preselectors.

Another is that purely on being a complicated electromechanical contrivance, it wasn't particularly reliable. Then several companies (I believe) like Chevy, introduced vacuum power assisted shifting, so that took the effort out of shifting (although that fell out of favor, as well). And after automatics took a foothold in the market, manual transmissions really got delegated to being the 'cheap' option, or rarely, the 'sporty' option, neither of which are suited to a fancy preselector.

All that having been said, though, the concept of a preselector is really cool. And part of me does wonder why it never caught on in europe/notUS, because automatics didn't catch on there for a long time. Still, even, it's uncommon. Not sure.

Anyway, more to the point, don't worry about shifting a manual. Literally the easiest thing in the world. And it's clutch > shift > release clutch, so not at the same time, exactly. Now being able to work the clutch and the gas pedal at the same time, in order to get moving... now that's the hard part. But like anything else, you'll learn, and you'll be an old pro in no time at all.

I will! Only a of couple things:
A: There is a reason most drag race cars have automatic transmissions. Because what tiny amount of power you lose in the torque converter right off the line (and it's really not much with a high stall racing converter [not to mention there is a bit of slip in a clutch right at takeoff anyway]) is easily made up for with the near-instantaneous shifts. Something that's quite literally impossible to do as fast with a manual shifter and clutch.

B: Cars made within the last couple of years are extremely liberal with the torque converter lock-up. So much so that it's on basically all of the time. They do this to meet fuel efficiency requirements. Even so, in an ordinary car - anything short of a race car, anyway - there's really no practicable difference in performance or efficiency, between a manual or automatic.

But I don't really know anything about motorcycle automatics. Didn't even know they had autos lol.

Technically GM introduced the automatic in 1941 models in their Cadillac and Oldsmobile lines and it spread to Pontiac after the war ( Chev and Buick opting to delay to each develop their own cheaper and smoother trans respectively).

Mopar had something like 2 or 3 semi-automatic pre-war dating back before you the GM hydromatic...they were so good Mopar actually slept at the switch and didn't come out with a full modern automatic till it looked stupid not to have one. Some of their manuals could do clutchless shifts between 1 and 2 as well as 3 and 4 (with 2 and 3 being full manual clutch shifts)... They also had fluid drive which usually was a full manual(IIRC they paired it with some of their other semi auto systems) with a fluid coupling that allowed you to shift into second or third and drive the car all day without touching the clutch even at stop lights (this gave Mopar cab service dominance for something like a decade)... IIRC there was some manual transmission they offered where one could shift without using the clutch too.

Automatic gearboxes had evolved along time. Yes, old ones had power loss on the torque convertor (the hidraulic one still have), but the new hidraulic have electronic gear change (so much better on this side) and there are some non-hdyraulic automatic gearboxes.
Anyway, it's a matter of choose. I've seen some really stupid arguments on youtube about manual versus automatic (on Romanian vlogs - most people around here don't even know that the are some other models of geraboxes). So no need for aruging.
In Romanian automatic hydraulic gearboxes (cutii de viteze automate hidraulice) are somtimes called "hidramate" (hidramată is the singular) probably beucase of "Hydromanic"... but sometimes is a general term for all automic geraboxes.

"Tucker" had made some nice cars, very advanced, but the saftey and modernity had to wait in the U.S.A. In Europe we where making advances in the '50's... "Mercedes" Ponton had crumple zones.
But why they didn't tried to improve the system, in order to make it relaible?


Probably "Wilson" system needed to much maintinance. When British quit it still not all of theyr cars full syncromesch gearboxes. They could improve the system, but they didn't (otherwise, if you didn't confused the gearchange pedal with the clutch pedal and do thing like starting to drive the car in 3rd gear + lack of meintenance, the Wilson preselector was harder to damage then a manual gerabox by unexperienced drivers).

Another things that they didn't improved was the automatic clutch. There where 2 types of automatic clutch: converter (Saxomat/Olymat) and vakumatic (I think the 1st had aslo vacum). The British had one like vakumatic, but I forgot it's name. Not relaible, but they could be improved. I don't why they where so dumb and they didn't try to make a better system if the other methodes failed. For some drivers it would have had been more easy for not having to press the clutch pedal. O.k., I hate the dern clutch!
Oh, "Panhard et Levassor" Dynamic had automat clutch up to 1939. And unlike the other automated clucthc, you could switch to manual clutch if you wanted to. Freedom to choose.
http://doyennes-panhard-levassor.fr/...car-p26-27.jpg (whole article: http://doyennes-panhard-levassor.fr/en/last-news/ )

In Romania we used buses (both new and second-hand) with vacuum operated shitfts.

Telecolor-Let me offer you a few suggestions. I'm 62, have had a license since I was 16. I've taught several people how to drive, the last one being my little "Girlfriend", Bethany, starting when she was like 8 or 9. I taught her in my 2000 V-10 Ford Excursion 4X4 SUV, which is WAY bigger than almost any vehicle you're likely to encounter in Bucharest, except for leftover Soviet Chaikas, Zlins, & other chrome plated bulldozers. I'd try hard to find an automatic car when you're 1st starting out, an automatic will save you the trouble of stalling out, & possibly having inadvertent collisions w/other cars. If you have a BIG empty parking lot where you can practice w/o being bothered-or bothering anyone else, that's a step ahead, too. Practise backing up into parking spots a LOT, to where it becomes second nature to you, & hopefully, you won't have to deal w/a smashed tail light, headlamp, or irate owner of the car you just tapped... Once you get comfortable w/driving, & don't scare yrself anymore, then maybe you might start want to learn how to operate a manual. . Again, start out slow, take things EASY, find the biggest hill in Bucharest, come to a complete stop, & attempt to climb it to the top in yr manual-and NOT stall out, or start going ass-backwards... Some might argue w/me on learning on an automatic, but if Bucharest is like every other metropolitan area I've ever been in, you will want every aid to effortless driving you can get... The goals should ALWAYS be-1) Don't get hurt, 2)-Don't hurt anyone else, 3) Don't hurt another car, & 4)Don't hurt YOUR car. Sounds intimidating, but I'm pretty sure you'll do FINE...Driving isn't really all that difficult, & can be a HELLUVA lot of fun !!

Taught my son to drive manual in about ten minutes when he was 12. I had a warehouse with large private lot at the time. We went out in my '60s sports car -- manual everything. I adjusted the idle to about 1200 rpm, then we worked solely on being able to get the car moving without killing the engine, using only the clutch. No accelerator, no brake. Let him focus in on the friction point for smooth engagement without shudder or over-slipping. Nothing to hit, plus car has a lever e-brake I could stop it with. Once he learned the dynamics of engagement, we introduced the accelerator pedal to the equation, and worked on real-world acceleration. Then I dropped the idle back down for him to put everything together.

After that, the next lesson was hill-holding using lever e-brake in conjunction with standard clutch/accel operation.

Added bonus: no father/son teaching tension!

All that said, the smoothest-shifting auto I've ever driven is in my 2500 Suburban. Entrance ramps in particular are just a continuous smooth application of power. Pretty good for a 16-year-old truck.

In Bucharest there aren't too many old Soviet big cars. You barley see one.
But yesterday I've seen a big "Chevrolet" 4 x 4.
It's more common to see big Europeanen and Asian (Japan, South Korea) big automobiles then ex-Soviet ones.
There is an auto poligon in Bucharest where you can go and drive if you don't posses an auto driving licence.

I will try to see how an manual gearbox is. Shees, why the couldn't kept column shifters.
But still I'm intrested in the preselector. I've heard abou it at least 14 years ago on a documentary on Discovery Chanlles and I was intrested. Forgot about it, and by chance I rediscover it... think while I was looking for old British cars.

Yeah, Daimler-Benz started focusing on vehicle safety not long after the shooting stopped in 1945.The "Pontons" had extremely rigid floors, & I think, collapsible steering columns, long before anyone else thought of them. They soon redesigned their interiors so that the knobs were either soft, or wouldn't penetrate an eye socket, rear-view mirrors would break off easily rather than embed themselves in yr forehead, they had pretty decent seat belt systems, the door locks were virtually unburstable, & wouldn't spill the people bouncing all over the road things like this. Ford had a safety campaign in 1956 where they offered seatbelts & a few other items, & Chevy ate Ford's lunch that year, saleswise, anyway. Actually, virtually NO US cars were safe, really, til the late 1960s, when they started putting radial tires & disc brakes on some cars. The drum brakes, you had 2, maybe 3 panic stops, & you were done til they cooled down a bit. I still shudder whenever I watch that video of a mint 1959 Chevy "Kissing face" w/a 1994 Chevy...I think they hit at 45 MPH, the people in the '94 car might have walked away, but everyone in the '59 would have been hamburger..

But why "Chevy" ate "Ford"?

It was all a question of STYLING. In 1955, all 3 big US carmakers came out w/new styling. GM/Chevy's styling was judged better than Ford's, but Chevy had a "Facelift" for '56, & a rather heavily restyled model for '57. I'm a '57 model, but I prefer the '56 Chevy styling... The Chevy was known as "The Hot One" in '55, the Ford put out their safety campaign in '56, & Chevy countered with "The Hot One's even HOTTER"... & outsold Ford by a Bunch... The 2 cars were, along w/Plymouth, Chrysler's answer to them both, pretty evenly matched each other in performance & features, but a lot of observers felt Chevy had the best styling, which sold LOTS of cars back then.

In getting back to preselector gearboxes, I remember reading a very little bit about them over the years. Nothing much really stands out, w/the exception that they were somewhat troublesome & maybe were typically installed in racing/high performance cars. I seem to remember another brand being "Cotal", but again nothing much beyond that name comes to mind. One slight tidbit-I think Ralph Stein mentioned in one of his books was that one driver in one race that I can't remember where or when, flubbed a gearchange w/one & blew the motor. I don't know how much stock I'd put into that story, since I can't remember any further details than what I related, & for that I'm sorry, but there you go....

My dad went through the American transition from manual to automatic transmissions as a mechanic and service manager, and always said it was harder to learn on manual and change to automatic than the other way around. Not having a mental reset to try it both ways, I can't say for sure. Anyway, he insisted I learn on a manual (the driving school car) and then take the exam on an automatic (our family car).

Yes, the manual took a little practice to get the feel of the clutch, but it wasn't that bad. The first time I approached a red light that turned green before I got there and shifted down into second to accelerate again, the instructor said "Where did you learn that?" I wanted to brag that I was an engineering student and understood the principles, but I just smiled.

Cotal was French. Electric operated. Used in some luxury cars too.
I heared it wasn't so relaible. And I'm not sure it was a preselector.

Last night I dreamed that I drove an '30's preselector gerabox automobile. Not a specific brand, since the body style was more of a combination between "Croslley", "Riley" and "Talbot" London. Black + blue.

I learnt to drive in an automatic, my mother couldn't/wouldn't drive a manual, so that kinda took care of THAT. When I did set out to learn a manual, I had a day or 2 of stalling, embarrassing myself & so forth, but soon got everything "Sorted Out". In my old age now, I'm lazy, & have strictly "Slushboxes". But, my daily driver, the ginormous Excursion, they only came w/autos, my '67 Lincoln, the '73 Fleetwood Brougham Caddy & my wife's 2014 Touareg they were the same way-Only available w/autos. The Caddy was my Grandad's Pride & Joy-He always wanted the biggest, nastiest Cad they made, he & my granny went to Louisville, Kentucky on business one weekend, it was in a Dealer's near their hotel. It started Talking To him, about half an hour later, he went to pick her up in his flashy new ride. How much was it, Fritz ? she asked. $10, 243,78 he answered. You spent TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS on a CAR ?!? Are you outta your MIND ?!? I think she blew 3 gaskets over that car. She was so damn mad at him, she wouldn't speak to him all the way home, & she stayed "Fuzzed Up" for about a month. He was like 75 at the time, he still worked, he never took vacations, never spent money frivolously-Except on this-and always kept his head down & minded his own business. We only let him drive it a year or 2 after that, & then my dad & uncle took his keys away-he just wasn't safe anymore. But for a while, "Fritz" got his great big toy-And there wasn't a happier guy around. I'll never sell it-its one of the few things of his that I have.

Oddly, at both the Deutsches Museum (Munich) and the Benz Museum (Stutgart), both exhibits talked about the Americans being ahead in safety research after the war. Which struck me as weird coming from the US. Then again, we did have highway research, Jersey Barriers, etc come around back then, and GM, Ford, et al did smash a lot of instrumented cars, even if the production stuff were deathtraps.

(And even today, the X frame is controversial...)

The "Wasp-Waisted" X frames of 1957-64 were, IMHO one of the WORST engineering fiascos ever foisted on an unknowing public. That, & the fact they used 14" tires w/corresponding smaller brakes on the monster sized cars of the era, wasn't too swift, either. Why did they do it ? Styling. Pure & simple. They wanted to lower the heights of cars, they were able to trim an inch or 2 out of the heights, yet keep mostly the cavernous sized interiors. I always fell out w/Ralph Nader over his preoccupation w/ silly things like hood ornaments, yet he RARELY or NEVER looked at roadholding, braking standards,better tires, things that would have REALLY made a difference. I tell you, watching the video of that poor 1959 Impala has always made me truly physically ill. And it tells you almost everything you need to know about them damnable X frames... But, would I have a '59 Impala in crackerjack shape like that one was ? You bet your Sweet Bippy I would.... Those "Suicide-Door Lincolns" are dangerous, too-They tend to collapse if tapped in the rear-But TRY & take away one of mine...

Before I get accused of being a "Blowhard" over Fritz's Caddy, I guess I should tell you the OTHER side of the story. It was, & IS a very flashy, impressive car. It also was/is a MONUMENTAL pile of Junk. The whole car, even from Day One, has always felt all "Loosy-Goosy", like every nut, bolt & screw in it oughta be given a few more turns w/a screwdriver or wrench, & REALLY tightened up. Its a '73, its built to those infamous, "Hell, Bob, that's close enuf for Government work" quality control standards. NOTHING really fits right on it. Its about the "Top Dawg" car in GM's Top of the line division", & the quality of the fabrics, leathers & so on-Well, even the Soviets would have likely put better materials in their cars. Being a '73, it was caught up in the era where the Government had decided that our cars were killing us quickly by all the pollution they put out, so we had ever-tightening emissions standards-That few mechanics in the field understood, knew how to work on, or even cared. A LOT of the early pollution junk got removed or disconnected because the cars drove & performed terribly, you could trash all that stuff, & they'd come close to performing like they did a few years earlier. The Cad has a 472 cubic inch displacement V-8 , I think that;s right at 8 liters for our Metric Friends, even with its astounding size-233" long, 4999 lbs, it should be able to run away & hide from nearly everything else on the road. Well, uhh, no. It feels no more powerful than yr average Riding Lawnmower. Also, most of the emissions crapola worked at cross purposes to Fuel Economy, so this mighty beast can only manage about 6 MPG in town, & a rousing 9-10 on the highway... A few other gripes-Generous Motors started experimenting w/water based paint about then, it has NEVER been sable to take a good wash & wax job. GM also decided that the vinyl tops that were standard on these beasts didn't need to be painted underneath the vinyl, so by '78 or so, you could almost poke yr thumb thru the top, especially around the rear window, which held water quite well... I'd send the car to Telecolor, but I'd think it would likely lead to a Declaration of War between America & Romania... Those guys have suffered ENUF, w/ Chowchesku & his ugly-ass wife, & having to live next to Albania.... (Grin)

Sandy, that's what I like about you, giving a balanced description (at least when you're calmed down a bit). :D

One Saturday, my dad did a basic tune-up on our pre-pollution car, and told me "watch what we'll do." We took it right over to the Lung Association free pollution check, and the guy there thought at first his meter wasn't reading right. But it was a nice day, 75 degrees outside, and my dad informed me that if we went back the next day the readings would be much worse. A carbureted engine without electronic control is basically unable to maintain precise combustion under all conditions, and has to run rich to avoid ever running too lean. Then came the early pollution controls, which essentially detuned the spark timing for more complete combustion but much lower power and efficiency. Once we got fuel injection and engine computers, we Chicagoans lost an excuse for not going to work in the winter - "the car won't start." If I have the numbers right, the V-6 in my 2013 Mustang gets nearly 1.5 HP per cube, on regular, which back then would have meant a temperamental hot rod running high octane.

Well, I've ALWAYS loved cars, the only reason I learnt to read was to be able to read Ralph Stein's books, Motor Trend, Road& Track, Car & Driver, etc. As an OBVIOUS Omniscient, I feel a need to share w/you Mere Mortals at least SOME of the wealth of my knowledge about motor vehicles. I try to be as factual as possible, given my basically PSYCHOTIC mind & undeniably DISAGREEABLE temperament. At least I haven't threatened to kill any one of the 7-8 Indian Scammer calls I get daily. I barely get done w/enquiring about the Maternal sexual preferences of ONE of those LOVELY young chaps til ANOTHER one calls, wanting to Lower my Eenterest rates, pay off my Stoodent Loans, or re-up the warrantee on my car...But it IS likely a very good thing for Old Indio that I'm NOT privy to the "Go Codes" for Bongo-52s....Mbwahahahahahahaha...

Come to think of it, technically the preselect gearbox is still alive... in the automated manual transmissions. Like VW's dual clutch trans, that is basically like two separate manual transmissions in one unit, one has even gears, and one has odd gears. Each has its own clutch. While accelerating in 1st, for example, the second gearbox is 'preselected' in 2nd gear, and then the computer disengages one clutch, engages the other, and then the first gearbox gets preselected into 3rd. And so on. Naturally, the problem occurs when you do something that the computer can't anticipate. Like accelerating right to the shift point and then slowing down.

They're stupidly complicated for what's basically a glorified manual transmission. IMO, saving the tiny amount of torque converter losses isn't justified by using a manual transmission that's as complicated as an automatic, but without some of the benefits... like working properly.

True that some modern models are manual - automatic.
But for me, a simpler meachincal mechanism, like the preslector looks more intresting. But hydraulic transimision still haves some torque loss. Some of the modern automatics don't have the hydraulic transmision.

Well either which way, if you're going to buy a car, just buy whatever you like. You'll inevitably learn to drive a manual, anyway. My only suggestion is that if you live in a city with lots of stop-and-go traffic, OR a place with lots of hills, try to get an automatic. You will be so much happier.

One option to have the satisfaction of being able to manually ratchet through gears but still have an automatic is to get a 90s Honda Prelude. They have an automatic where in the drive position you can wiggle the shifter forward and back to manually increment and decrement the gears. A friend of mine had one and drove it like a bat outa hell all the time...Twas a fun car but not good for hauling stuff.

Why it isn't good for hauling stuff?

It's a fuckn tiny car... Could practically park it on the hood of my 78 Lincoln Mark V.

Do NOT limit yrself toa small car. Maybe you don't need something as huge as my Excursion-Even I don't need it ALL the time-but some day you WILL want/need to have something that can hold a LOT of stuff. When I got my Suburban-Which was only slightly smaller-I found it as handy as the pocket on yr shirt, & soon wondered how I ever got along with out it.

This. My daily driver/commuter cars have become progressively smaller and less practical (91 Supra->91 Geo Prizm GSi->01 Miata) So now I have a "stable" of cars. One being a 90 Dodge W250 single cab long bed where I can slide full sheets of plywood in it and close the tailgate, and pull anything I want. The other is an 85 Peugeot 505 wagon, rear seats fold down flat and there's 7+ feet of floor to play with, it has a limited slip rear diff, and it floats over shitty roads like a magic carpet.

On a more related to the thread note, I've yet to own a car with an automatic transmission. All manual here. I don't really like automatics because they always seem to shift too late/soon and seem to lug the engine. There's this Ford E250 van at work I had to use to take a sound system (4 big JBL EONs and stands) up to Santa Fe from Albuquerque (a 2100 foot climb in elevation) and it was a hard drive. I had to turn O/D off a couple of times and it always seemed to be lugging the engine. It might be due for a tune up though.

Also Miatas are no fun in auto......

The thing about the Mighty Valdez is that w/its ginormous size, V-10 power, all the rest, I've never felt like I had "Topped it Out"-No matter how much Junque I've had in it, how much weight it had, I still had a a LOT more weight, or size of stuff to go. I've been "Shanghaied" moving people & their stuff a number of times, & trust me, it just is a helluva lot easier to be "Over-trucked" in one of those situations.

Sandy G, this is the test that you are talkin about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

That test is fake.

Well, I mean, ok, it is real. And I admit, those old cars from the 50s-70s were not built to be crashed, and behave very differently in a crash than a modern car built to pass crash test regulations. And to that effect, were not as safe as modern cars. Of course, I'm talking only about structurally, negating the lack of airbags, seat belts, and head rests. But, you can literally see the rust cloud coming out of that old Chevy on impact. I am a mechanic, in a place that salts their roads, I know car rust. That is not like a little bit of surface rust or something, that is A LOT of rust. There's one shot where you can see the rust literally pouring out of the frame onto the floor! That Bel Air was not as structurally sound as it was when it was built.

Besides, it wasn't a fair fight anyway.

You wanna see old cars fighting old cars? Check this out :P

Also the X frame GMs introduced in 59s were among the least crash safe chassis of the era...add rust to that and about the only thing that could make that car less safe is if they packed it with dynamite.

Some of the history of GM's Hydramatic has been a bit bungled.

The Hydramatic started as a Cadillac development in the early 1930s, and was continued under the auspices of Central Research. Cadillac, Olds, and Buick lent engineers out for the early development work. This lead to the Automatic Safety Transmission that required one to operate a clutch to move between reverse, neutral, and the forward position. Once in the forward position, you could switch between forward gears at will without using the clutch. This was offered for a model year or two on Olds and Buick. It wasn't exceptionally popular.

It was decided to give the fully automatic Hydramatic transmission to Olds in late 1939 for the 1940 model year in case the design was a flop. This pissed off the Buick engineers, and thus they waited for Oliver Kelley's transmission, which would eventually become the Buick Dynaflow transmission. The Dynaflow saw some use during the war in military applications and would become and option on Buicks starting in 1947 for the 1948 model year.

Olds and Cadillac engineers were able to iron out some minor flaws with the Hydramatic, and it became an option in late 1940 for the 1941 model year on Cadillac. The Hydramatic was a hit in the prewar years and would return when postwar production resumed at both divisions. After the war, Pontiac was given the Hydramatic as well. The original Hydramatic is actually fairly efficient for an early automatic. The Olds 303 V8 paired with a Hydramatic transmission was pretty good on gas for the time.

Chevrolet would introduce the Powerglide transmission, which was a tangential development from the same work done by Kelley on the Dynaflow. They're extremely similar to one another, but were developed more or less separately from 1946 onward. The Powerglide is fairly efficient for an early automatic; the Dynaflow turned Buicks into even bigger gluttons. Then I suppose if one could afford a Buick you wouldn't have been worrying about the price of gas either...

GMC trucks inherited the Hydramatic from Pontiac in the early 1950s as they shared engineering talent often, due mostly to proximity. It was beefed up and modified a bit for use in light duty trucks, but is otherwise more or less the same as any other post-war Hydramatic.

Chevrolet was originally supposed to receive a larger Dynaflow transmission for their trucks; such a design had been worked out during the war for the Hellcat tanks, etc. But due to the sharing of components between GMC and Chevrolet trucks that already existed, it was decided to simply use the same truck Hydramatic for both makes.

Something I'd about give my Left Nut for-And I know y'all are gonna Hee-Haw at me is a 1954 Chevy Model 3807 Tonne Panel wagon w/the Truck Hydramatic, full chrome grille fender stripe mouldings, passenger seat, tinted glass, AM radio, & 7.00 X 17 wheels & tires... Why, you ask ? Why NOT,,,, I'd reply. Last year of the legendary "Advance Design" light truck styling, 1st year for the slushbox, & I guess I'd have to drop a at least a 350 in it, as well-They only came w/a 216, or maybe a 235, neither of which could pull a greasy string outta a cat's rectum. I'd fix up the interior w/carpet, insulation. & the 3 bench seats from a period Suburban, except of course I'd redo 'em in leather.. I'd paint it maroon, or go w/that dark green Chevy used on their lt trucks, & paint on the side "Sandy's TV/Radio Sales & Service" in authentic 1950s script... Now would that toy be the Cat's @ss or what ?!? But a dreadful lack of Dinero will make it, sadly, only a dream..

Tastes are varying from Europe to U.S.A.
But still I wonder why British stoped making those cars, since in Great Britain not all car had syncromesh for all speeds in the '50's + it would have had been an intresting export thing to continental Europe.
Here is one lady drivin a preselector gearbox car (I want that model of car): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x00aXHI2tTY
I want to buy brochoures for British cars with preselector gerabox, but, man, they are expensive! :no:

Another reason GMC got Hydramatic was due to GMC using Pontiac engines in some of the trucks, especially V8 engines when GMC offered a V8. Those two divisions seemed to share components a lot.