Packard Forum Index » General

I read somewhere--perhaps here--that the first column-shifts were not very reliable and caused a whole host of problems. If so, how long was it before column-shifts became reliable?

as always
Garrett Meadows

Old-time cane shifts had very few moving parts, the cane used a ball & socket to permit the cane motion and the end directly engaged the shifter rails so the action was direct, no lost motion, and almost nothing to wear. Early column shifts had lots of links and rods with many places for wear to occur, not to mention misadjustment by those trying to solve the wear problem without replacing worn parts. Also column shifts can be abused by drivers not deliberately following the "H" pattern but rather just ramming from first to second - that really beats the links and joints. And these problems were well distributed through the industry, not just a Packard growing pain.

So, unreliable? I don't think that's the correct word. Complex and prone to wear, abuse and mis-adjustment would be my description. As years went by the linkages evolved and became simplier and more robust. Certainly the new Packard linkage for 1951 was far superior to it's predecessors.

Thank you the informative reply. Yes, I agree, "unreliable" was not the right word. When I was writing the initial posting, I couldn't really come up with a more appropriate word to characterize the problematic aspects of a column shift. I guess "problematic" is the word I should have used.

My late father always extolled the virtues of a floor-shift as opposed to a column shift, echoing what you said about the floor-shift being a much simpler mechanism and not as prone to "hanging up" like a column shift.

I don't guess there are any cars still made with a column-shift.

as always
Garrett Meadows

Some of the more interesting column shifts were some European cars with 4-speed on the column, Sunbeam Alpines, Triumph 2-liter roadsters, etc. Most of those had an interlock for engaging reverse, pulling the knob outwards on the Triumph. Also some curiosities with US column shifts, for some years Nash used the shift lever to engage the starter; key on, pull the lever towards you in neutral [or was it push away from you]. And then the variety of vacuum-assisted column shifts, Hudson, Cord, Chevrolet, perhaps others, all of which were rather quickly abandoned.

The Packard units were inferior to Cadillac. The Packard setup was a converted floor shift transmission whereas General Motors designed the side loader trans specifically for a column shift. The old Chevys, Fords, and Chryslers were great, although they could lock up if you didn't know how to drive. The Nash/Rambler column shift was junk.

Peugeot, Citroen, and Saab used column shifts that were trouble free. This is especially surprising given their other shortcomings; except for the Peugeot 404 which was one of the twenty or so best cars ever made. Renault used a column shift on the R-16. I miss the column shift, however they were never intended for speed shifting.

When training a newbie on column shift I always explain that they are not for shifting gears, they are for selecting gears.

Ross, that's just excellent instruction, wish I would have thought of that myself but rest assured I'll use it in the future!

See you at Hershey Saturday?

Dave

Will be at Hershey Wed- Thurs- Fri at C4G-19,20, or at any tent where there is free food.

The odd pairing, composed of column-shift and rear engine/rear gear box is noteworthy. Not unreliable but "borderline ingenious".



Tatra 603-2


image source: sestsettrojka.euweb.cz

I remember driving a very old 2cv in France, it didn't have column shift but you shifted (or selected) with a gear shifter coming straight out of the dash. Another fun little nugget about it; 2cv stands for "2 cheveaux" which means "2 horses" in France as in horse power. Needless to say the engine was the size of a sowing machine.