Four Speed Studebaker Avantis!

[Guest dapy]

As usual Gunny had the factory answers. Automatic was more popular with dealers and their customers. Wives liked it and they held the purse strings.

Which was cheaper to build? If Marketing wanted to sell more four speeds they could have published comparative performance numbers if there was an advantage for manual.

[Gunslinger]

True, 'course in general, I don't understand why the "start in 2nd AT was the one offered either. The car certainly weighs enough that even in general driving it really benefits from a first gear standing start. My guess is it's pure gimmick-designed to make folks feel cool shifting their AT-equipped car 'cause "they're supposed to". If it weren't for the cost and general hassle I'd have tossed in a "normal" BW in my R1 long ago.

I've heard several thoughts on why the second gear start was used by Studebaker. Without the benefit of someone actually there when the decision was made by Studebaker and BorgWarner, the two most reasonable answers are due to Studebaker's long-time emphasis on economy...starting off in second gear makes jackrabbit starts difficult, and maybe the most reasonable explanation...that since Studebakers...especially with V8's, were nose heavy and a first gear start would result in spinning the rear tires far too easy, resulting in noise, premature tire wear and wasted fuel.

With the 700R4 installed in my Avanti, that low first gear takes some feathering of the throttle to keep from spinning tires...and it's still far too easy to do so. I'm not saying a 700R4 and the BW PowerShift are equals, but that last potential explanation may be the most valid.

[mfg]

I've always felt that Studebaker's converting their 'new' Flightomatic to 2nd gear start early in the 1956 model year was a definite mistake. But I believe Studebaker did this for two reasons...#1 being smoothness, by eliminating one automatic shift. And #2 of course, was the increased fuel mileage a 2nd gear start provided.