Manual v automatic transmission
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MERE were two news items in :he March 16 edition of Comnercial Motor that I wish to :omment on: I , Page 22 contained an article m the 4 x4 Bedford van and the :omment was made that this )articular CF was equipped with lutomatic transmission, a feaure of which the writer "heartly approves of on 4 x 4s.I vould consider that automatic ransmission is suitable where he vehicle is normally driven inly over rough ground or in nuddy conditions and is always within reach of outside.. assistnce. I do not consider it suitble for cross-country work where deep rivers have to be arded or for work in isolated reas where the vehicle and rew are very much on their I have owned two Land:overs — one a diesel, one a etrol — and have travelled iroughout the Middle East and orthern Africa and whenever eep water needed to be egotiated I usually fitted on a Jbber exhaust-pipe extension 3 prevent the water from ooding back up the exhaust.
With normal transmission, owever, it is possible to overw the engine and slip the lutch thereby obtaining the ecessary pressure to force the rater out but severely limiting )e speed of the vehicle to that Jitable for crossing a rough ver bed.
I had never realised the
nportance of this until last immer when I spent a holiday Iceland and hired a Chevrolet lazer K5 to tour the interior. his vehicle is presently being larketed in the UK by GMC rider the name -Jimmy" and s a 6ft Sin wide, five-litre Jtomatic transmission cross)untry vehicle the ride is sheer xury and it offers more space id comfort than the Range over.
The ride in this vehicle can rily be described -as superb and -eless, but when we had deep
rivers to cross the limitations of automatic transmissions became obvious only too quickly. One particular river — the Fjordungskvisi — was something like 150 yards wide at its fordable point and about 2ft 6in deep. Being a glacial river it was turbid and it was, therefore, impossible to see the bottom. Wading in first was impracticable because the power of the river was such that a person could not stand up against it.
The fact that this was the safest and most practicable point to cross the river having already been determined, the only way to get across was to drive in as far up river as possible and then, steering the vehicle in the direction of the stream, drive from one sandbank to another breathing a sigh of relief every time that the vehicle came out of the water with its engine still running.
It was not possible to drive across the direction of flow because the current was so swift that it would have turned the vehicle over.
The engine had to be revved up high to prevent the water pouring into the exhaust, but as it is not possible to slip the clutch on an automatic we were forced to cross the unknown bed at a far higher speed than that desirable.
Had we not had factual information that there were no rock shelves at this point it would not have been possible to cross the river with an automatic vehicle at all whereas with a manual transmission vehicle the crossing could have been undertaken in a more sedate manner and with minimal risk to engine flooding and suspension damage.
Another problem came when negotiating an extremely muddy stretch of track.
We did very well until we got to the middle when the engine suddenly stalled and showed no interest at all in restarting. I was not too worried as I knew that there was a four-wheel-drive bus about half an hour behind us and this vehicle eventually pulled us out and the event waE recorded on about 30 cameras, but of course, the automatic Blazer could not be bumpstarted and it was then that I realised just how vulnerable we were.
The engine was eventually restarted and we continued on our way, but it was necessary for us to keep to "recognised tracks" for the duration of our stay rather than roam completely wild. A manual transmission vehicle would have been a far better proposition.
There was also an item entitled, "East Cross Opens", which related the the Blackwell Tunnel — Hackney through route in East London. The impression given by the item was that a new dual-carriageway had just been opened and would solve everybody's problems in East London. The road has, in fact, been open for some years — six to my knowledge — as a dualcarriageway from the Blackwell Tunnel to Bow and as a motorway from Bow to Hackney Wick, and all that has happened now is that the northern height restriction of about 121t 3in and the southern of about 13ft 4in have been replaced with a 17ft clearance underpass.
Your write-up states: "It will ease the chronic congestion this corridor has suffered for decades and will improve the local environment by drawing traffic from residential areas and other less suitable roads," This is not only nonsense, it is absolute drivel. All that the removal of the height restriction means is that high vehicles which were forced to travel from Bow to Leyton / Leytonstone via the A11 / Al2 can now use the Bow-Hackney Wick motorway.
What nobody mentions is that this motorway deposits all of its attracted vehicles in the middle of the Leyton housing development on roads that were
barely adequate in the days the horse-bus. With parked ci — and there is no reason w they should not be there — ii not possible in many sections. two lorries to pass, and, indeE one-way systems have had to instigated with thousands vehicles sardined into the tota unsuitable residential streE and with 20 minutes being t usual journey time for 3( yards of road.
It seems that Miss Shela! Roberts should have travelli the mile or so to the Hackn end of the motorway to see herself what she considers to an "improvement to the loc environment."
My sympathy goes to tl residents of Hackney and Leytr where the fumes and filth fro motor vehicles really do have be seen to be appreciated notice on a lamp post rea( "Hackney Wick NOT Agor Wick" and a very apt stateme that is, but then Hackney ar Leyton are on the other side London to Westminster ar precious few ME's and counc lors travel this way.
The only way to ease tlproblems of this area is to lir up the two sections of motorwE (A102 (M) and M11) as a matt( of urgency. Ordance Surve sheet 177 (East London) shoin very clearly the streets throug which the traffic corridor passE and one should bear in min that this corridor is not only major eastern exit route but abs the "East-Cross" route, the si called by-pass around easter inner London.
Build this four miles motorway and it will ease th "chronic congestion," but don build it and this £.50m so-cable "improvement" has achieve nothing except gross incor venience and annoyance fc thousands of residents of thi part of London W. A. SHARP, I ngatestone, Essex.