Given: GM had some idea what they were doing, and their purpose in selecting parts for what would be essentially a main-stay auto transmission - why wouldn't they just provide closer ratios?
Because they need to even satisfy old ,young & all the people in between also.Because closer is not better, closer is different. "Better" depends on the entire vehicle.
Example: a diesel is designed to have good torque with not much peak power. Why bother?
To give the best power in all gears,peak torque & better gas mileage.. A gas engine can have equal torque
,not true/A.K.A. wrong
and even higher power.
Because diesel torque occurs at low RPM that you use all the time (which is not possible with a NA ignition engine), that's available in any gear without downshifting, that "feels like" a far bigger motor. For engines with a broad and low speed torque curve, losing RPM on shift is less important,
incorrect also,need to keep it @ least in the torque range,if it falls of because of too large of gear spacing ,that is why closer gear spacing is better. than covering the widest range of vehicle speeds in MPH.
GM makes 6 speed auto trans now for a while ,otherwise why not just stay w/a 4 speed w/large gear spacing..,,,why,well,,, to cover the torque bands closer.
Why do they make CVT trans,,to keep the engines in there peak torque bands.
BTW,,,I never like using a close ratio 4 spd trans"(was not happy"),the take off is just too weak for small 6 cylinders.
Wide ratio was better suited for day to day driving & 1/4 mile racing.
The Muncie 4 spd was a wide ratio,but nothing like the gear spacing of a 700.
Approx same gear spacing range as a TH350 ,,but had 4 gears to fill in the gaps closer instead of just 3 gears..
Again,IMO.
MBHD
