mmarshall

Here, IMHO, is an interesting topic for discussion.

Back in the 1960s, in response to a number of vehicle-accidents and sometimes-damaged or ruined transmissions caused by transmission-shift detents that did not match in all American vehicles, the standard P-R-N-D-L series still in effect today was mandated by Federal Law. Ralph Nader (for those of you who read his book......Unsafe at any Speed) goes into this in detail. Ford, Chrysler, and AMC generally used the more-familiar (and safer) PRNDL, while GM, the oddball, used several different different patterns, including P-N-D-L-R and P-N-D-GRADE-R. Having the R (Reverse) next to Low-range was risky because it made it easier to inadvertently engage it when downshifting, damaging or ruining the transmission. Chrysler used push-buttons until 1966 (either horizontally or vertically) while the other companies used a conventional lever. After 1966, everyone used a lever and the standard PRNDL...and there were generally no further problems.

Today, in contrast, the same basic PRNDL sequence (or an equivalent to it) still remains, but the problem is that, instead of a standard lever, there are all kinds of different devices to engage gears. Some brands (such as Lincoln) now use electronic push-buttons. Others use piano-key-like tabs you push down. Others, like GMC, some Buicks, and Honda/Acura, use confusing tabs where some pull up and others push down. Others, like Mercedes and some new GM products, use a stub-lever on the shift column that you either flick up and down or a combination of forward or backward up/down, with a PARK button on the end of the stalk.....a hazardous design, IMO, since Park can easily be hit with your hand or finger inadvertently when the vehicle is moving. And, again IMO, among the worst designs are the E-shift joysticks that some GM and BMW products use that operate in an L-pattern to engage Reverse....forward and left, and bump in the same direction to either upshift or downshift. The park-button is on top of the joystick, making it easy to inadvertently engage. In the secondary manual-shift gates, most vehicles use a +/- fore/aft bump-motion to quickly upshift or downshift.....slightly older Mazdas and BMWs, like Formula-1 cars, used the opposite -/+ to do the same thing. And, of course, another bane of my existence.....the zig-zag shift-levers used in many different vehicles, primarily from Japanese brands. There are also a number of other designs in use, but I don't have time to cover them all here in detail.

On of the reasons (among several) why I bought an Encore GX rather than some other Buicks is that it and the Envista, l like many smaller Kias and Hyundais, uses a simple, no-nonsense fore/aft lever with no zig-zags....the same general pattern I got used to over many years, and IMO the easiest to use.

This variety of designs may be fine for those who regularly use one of these designs in their vehicle and get used to it (although it can still be easy sometimes to engage Park inadvertently even if you are used to some systems). But, needless to say, tis wide variety of designs can cause confusion for those who have to try and adjust to many different vehicles, like those who work in repair shops, garages, Valet-Parking, rental-vehicles, and other businesses where one often drives a number of different vehicles. or for some owners who regularly own and drive their own multiple vehicles.

So, this begs the question if it is time for another update to the old law from 60 years ago which standardized PRNDL sequence......and mandating one basic shift-method for all vehicles with multi-gear transmissions? I would note that Consumer Reports also recognizes this confusion, and is concerned about it. BEV vehicles would probably be less-affected than those with ICE, affected, since they usually have only one forward speed and one reverse....sometime not even neutral, since when the vehicle is topped the electric motor is not running. Consumer Reports is on record as favoring a new legal standard, and so am I. But I respect opposing views.

Striker223

Nah, just make it buttons or something like a **** to save space since it's not manual anyway.

I prefer something physical so I don't have to look around to send commands or pray I indexed correctly on the screen edge etc.

mmarshall

Thanks, Striker...I forgot to mention the rotary-***** found in some Ford and Chrysler products.

Some older Jaguars also used them. One of them (the XF, if I remember correctly) had a shift-**** that popped up and down in the console under a set of small doors....I remember that from my test-drive.

I wouldn't lt necessarily call them risky like the exposed Park-Buttons on some designs, but IMHO rotary-***** are still awkward to use.

geko29

I'm good with almost any control method as long as it's well thought-out. Pretty much any type can be either good or bad. Take pushbuttons, for example, which are generally my least favorite. They can be done horribly (GMC Terrain, Acura MDX) or just fine (Chevy Tahoe, Corvette). I've got no problem with rotary shifters, but don't you dare put them right next to the volume or infotainment control ****.

Overall I'd say my favorite type are the monostable ones. But it's really a minor thing in the grand scheme of things.

Striker223

I HATE monostable shifters lol!

I can say that since I have two, most idiotic low feedback design ever and requires more effort than anything else to use. Can't just spin it to the stops like a rotary or count the clicks, can't just count the clicks like a pattern shifter on a Lexus or something, and can't even just press a button for a state of gear. The only redemption is they make great wrist rests/physical index locations for the MMI so in the end I have to admit it's functionally excellent.

Honestly if I really and stop and think about it like the dial shifters best, I had two in my 2015/17 Rams and my dad has one in the rover currently. The Lexus zigzag thing is nice but wastes space and is a pain to keep perfectly clean IMO for no benefit. The Mercedes "column shift" control lever is very nice other than pressing the end for park, but you can always just open the door to do that I guess.

My 03 truck has a true column shift and it's fine I guess, works very quickly and stays out of the way. I don't know, if it's not manual it matters little to me overall.

Trackruner

I hate the ones with a button that you pull straight back. Give me one without a button that moves right and left.



That being said, my current car actually has the button over the left and right movement, so it's clearly not a dealbreaker, lol

FrankReynoldsCPA

I really disliked the Toyota/Lexus zig zag shifter.

In a truck, I like a column shifter which is what I have in my F-150.

In the BMW, I actually do like the joystick they used up until it was replaced with the little shiftoris in the iDrive 8 cars.

geko29

I like monostable and dial types for the same reason--because the action to achieve the desired state remains exactly the same regardless of the current state. Want Drive? Pull back or spin right. Reverse? push forward or spin left. Park? push the park button. Neutral is the only thing that requires the slightest bit of thought (with either type), but I don't use that regularly.

Striker223

Issue is going from D-R and vice-versa with a mono, very inaccurate and you can't really land in the right zone easily unless you are very used to it. It's easy to end up in P or N from an over or undershoot. Mine has 4 positions, "neutral" forward push, rear, and full rear, it's easy to overshoot one rearward and go straight to full landing you in sport or past R and in N.

Park is full forward and is annoying for the same reasons. Took me like 3 days to get used to it

geko29

Ok I haven't seen that variety. The ones I've driven, you push forward all the way and you're in reverse, no matter what you were in before. Pull back all the way, and you're going forward (yes you could put it in sport if you were in D, or vice versa). Park is its own button.

Striker223

I would be totally fine with that as well lol!



Heres what I'm usually dealing with these days, I barely drive the Jeep or Lexus anymore. I can't go to park unless I hit R first and back off or wait a sec for full forward to unlock. It will also go to park if I open the door if stopped, or apply parking brake if moving 1-3mph....

Both of those functions I coded off though. They annoy me as I sometimes open the door to check parking lines

mmarshall

Agreed....one of the few things in my 2001 Lexus IS300 I disliked. Subaru also used them. Toyota did not always have the zig-zags, though....back in the 1990s, they were the conventional fore/aft levers.

mmarshall

Depending on where the actual location of the button is, I've never liked the idea of buttons for the PARK function. They can be too easy to accidentally hit or push with your finger or hand inadvertently when the vehicle is moving. That actually happened to me once with the electronic shifter on my Lacrosse. Fortunately, I was in a parking lot only going maybe 2 MPH...and it apparantly did not damage anything. But it was scary. If manufacturers are going to do that, they need to include a sensor that blocks activation when in motion.

GFerg

Yup, thats how it is in my car. Seems super simple to me. Park is on own and youre not going to slip up and accidentally press that button high up and off to the side. PLUS, i rarely even press the Park button. When you turn the car off, the car automatically goes into Park.



The only one i really hated was the circle shifter in Ford products. Park is also within the rotation where as other makes put Park in the center as a button. When making quick back and forth maneuvers, I constantly put it in Park. lol.


But overall, I really dont care about this too much. Its not going to stop me from buying a car that I truly like. I'll adjust.

tex2670

Personally, I like the separate Park button better. You are more likely to accidentally shift into park than you are to accidentally press the park button. Especially in cars where the "P" button is on the console, and not on the shift lever.