Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 18:56:56 -0600 From: "Ben Millard" <bmillardnopsamraccess.com> Subject: Re: clutchless upshifts
Greg Youngen wrote in message ... >Occasionally I like to shift up without using the clutch >My '86 900 8v transmission often balks and occasionally grinds when I try >this. Is this type of shifting, even when the gears easily >slip into place, hard on the transmission? Am I saving any appreciable >wear on the clutch by not using it so often? Clutchless shifting, if done right (perfectly) is obviously the ideal way to go. The reality of it is totally opposite. I just finally had to replace the clutch on my 86 900S at 148k and my Volvo wagon at 180k. (No reflection on the cars, merely luck and lots less horsepower and fun in the wagon.) The appreciable wear of properly using the clutch is INSIGNIFICANT. FOrget the clutchless shifts: clutches are much cheaper than synchromesh cones. Now, if you live in San Francisco, and use a slipped clutch to hold yourself on hills at stop signs, then we've got a problem. >I've got an 87 Nissan ...these cars are/were much easier to >shift without using the ...What's up with the >Saab? I think the SAAB's problem is mostly in the shift linkage. It is brilliant, compact, and pretty vague, especially with time. I'm sure there's a combination of effects making the SAAB 99-900 trannies so hard to shift perfectly, maybe the price of having front wheel drive and symmetrical drive shafts. (Think about how difficult that trick is. Esp. in my 73 99, when the few front wheel drive cars at that time had one drive shaft nearly twice as long as the other. Can you say "torque steer"?) The end result is simple: SAABs--the older ones, 95,96,97,99,900--have a fairly imprecise feel to the shift, and it makes tricks like clutchless shifting, double clutching, and really high speed gear changes pretty hard. (Witness my 900s bent shifter: bent when previous owner was obviously downshifting in a hurry.) Ben
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
