Talk:Hydramatic

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

As of the end of March '08, after mentioning the Automatic Safety Transmission, this page says "The results were not quite what GM Research had in mind", which could mean anything. Obviously, it should say something like "sales were poor" or "it was very popular", but I don't know which. This page says it sold very well (at an artificially low price); this page says it didn't. I don't know which, if either, is correct. Groyolo (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydramatic name still in use?

I just watched a commercial for the Sierra and I'm pretty sure it said it has a "Hydramatic transmission." Is this name still in use? The article seems to suggest it is not.
174.1.156.204 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Design - division of power incorrect?

In the "Design" section, it says

"Upon shifting to third, the forward gear assembly went back into reduction and the rear gear assembly locked. Due to the manner in which the rear gear assembly was arranged, the coupling went from handling 100 percent of the engine torque to about 40 percent, with the balance being handled solely by the gear train."

and

"The shift from third to fourth gear locked the forward gear assembly, producing 1.00:1 transmission. The fluid coupling now only handled about 25 percent of the engine torque, reducing slippage to a negligible amount."

I believe those statements are incorrect and that the power division was 50% mechanical gears and 50% fluid coupling in both third and fourth gears. For explanation, see Dual Range Hydramatic Power Flow

Safari Larry (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

back the tank up

the real question should be is why the stuart wont go into reverse, with out grinding a pound of scrap metal. and how did thay solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.219.154 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxhall and Holden (and Opel?)

For a few years before and after 1960 Vauxhalls and Holdens were fitted with Hydramatic gearboxes. Eddaido (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies concerning the popularity of automatic transmission

In the statement, ″During the 1930s, automakers sought to reduce or eliminate the need to shift gears. At the time, synchronized gear shifting was still a novelty (and confined to higher gears in most cases), and shifting a manual gearbox required more effort than most drivers cared to exert", the 'automakers' comment holds true only for American manufacturers. The large growth in the popularity of automatic transmission occurred in the US market but elsewhere, for a variety of reasons well documented in a study by Edmunds^[1], more than 80% of cars sold in Europe in 2020 have a manual transmission, compared to just 3% in the USA. So, 'most drivers' is inaccurate. Outside America, non-manual transmissions are usually found solely in prestige models aimed at higher earners. Similar considerations pertain in much of Asia and Africa. I appreciate the Hydramatic is principally an American technology but much of the article's content and style are written in American English and biased towards the situation in the USA. Humboles (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about automatic transmissions in general. It's an article about GM's automatic transmissions design primarily for the US market. Springee (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee is quite right but sticking with the wrong topic for a moment I would suggest the 'Automakers' comment holds true for European as well as US manufacturers, there were all sorts of production examples of fluid flywheels and epicyclic transmissions (for commercial vehicles too) in Europe but the principal problem was that European cars (with small engines brought about by local tax regimes) could not afford the great waste of energy in 1940s and 1950s US designed and built automatic transmissions. There Hydramatic stood out as an honourable exception that did not depend on a slush-pump. The end result for Europeans and the rest of the world is the multi-speed multi-clutch transmissions of today. I do not believe the 80% manual remark is correct but I am ready to be corrected. Eddaido (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://blog.getmyparking.com/2020/01/20/why-does-europe-prefer-manual-cars-over-automatic-ones/

[1] ttps://blog.getmyparking.com/2020/01/20/why-does-europe-prefer-manual-cars-over-automatic-ones/

[1]