I had that issue once and was lucky to be able to get going. On level ground in Braintree when it failed; I managed to get all the way home to East Kent wothout stopping - 90 odd miles. The synchro was worn but I was fine with double declutching etc.
It was fund throwing the money at the guy in the booth at the Dartford tunnel tolls! (yes, tunnel)
I learned on a 1952 Series I Land Rover. No synchro on first and second (by design) and precious little on third and fourth (age). And it was a directly linked clutch - no hydraulics!
I've used starting in gear as a way to get a car going when it couldn't get the engine past compression. It adds enough inertia to tide it over compression & get it going.
Diesels can be very fussy. The last one was diesel & wouldn't start if turnover speed was even a bit below maximum charge.
NT
Also modern cars don't appear to have starter motors, but run the alternator in reverse to spin the engine ...
Is that necessarily a bad thing if it delivers enough torque to the engine to turn it in all normal circumstances? One thing occurs to me though: most alternators are driven by the "fan belt" (which doesn't drive the fan if the car has an electric fan), so is this capable of delivering enough torque to the engine when the alternator is acting in reverse as a motor, without slippage of belt on pulleys? Presumably the torque required to turn over a cold engine (when the alternator is acting as a motor) is far greater than the torque needed to drive the alternator when it is supplying a normal electrical load.
I learned in 1981 on a Honda that was maybe a year or so old. And I then drove my mum's N-reg (1974) Renault. (My dad's car was automatic so synchromesh isn't relevant!)
So I've never driven a car without synchromesh on all gears. How long does it typically last (years or miles) before it starts to have noticeably less effect. The longest I've had a car is about 10 years or 170,000 miles. That is probably very small compared with the mileage and age of your Land Rover, depending on how long after 1952 you learned to drive :-)
Some cars (Hillmans, Fords) seem to have notchier gearchanges which may be either due to either gearbox or linkage, whereas others such as VW, French cars (Peugeot/Renault/Citroen) and Honda seem to have softer gearchange which engages more smoothly when the clutch is fully pressed and which is also less fussy about engine/road speed matching for clutchless.
What is the advantage (or disadvantage) of hydraulic over cable clutch? I remember my grandpa saying that his 1960s Wolseleys (rebadged Austin A55 and A60 respectively) had two fluid reservoirs - one for brake fluid and another for clutch fluid - and he made some disparaging comment about "these new
1970s cars" had "merely" cable clutch as if it was inferior. When the clutch mechanism failed on my Pug 308, I'm sure the RAC man said that this car had a hybrid mechanism: cable from the pedal to a hydraulic pump under the bonnet which converted physical movement of the cable into hydraulic pressure to actuate the clutch, which seemed unnecessarily complicated compared with either cable all the way from pedal to clutch or else hydraulic all the way from pedal to clutch.
I learned to drive in 1969 (in a Mini). I learned to double declutch in the Land Rover in 1971. So it was nearly 20 years old, and it had had a hard life! In fact the first thing I had to do was replace the clutch - and the gearboxes (two of them) had to come out upwards on a hoist. I don't remember the mileage reading, but it probably wasn't accurate.
I have an 18 month old Ford, and it seems very smooth. Older ones, however...not so good. For sheer vagueness, the column change on my Humber Hawk (successor to the Land Rover!) was the winner; that was even after I'd very carefully adusted all the many linkages.
Mechanical advantage, I would think. The Land Rover had neither hydraulics nor cable. It was a couple of bell cranks and short connecting rods, direct from the pedal to the clutch housing.
I had wondered about mechanical advantage, but then I realised that you could achieve that with a cable system (or a series of rods - never heard of that before) simply by varying the length of the lever that rotates on the clutch housing, whether the linear force that turns that lever about its fulcrum is transmitted by cable, rod or hydraulic pressure.
So I wonder if there is another reason. Maybe it introduces a maximum rate of movement of the mechanism which makes it easier to let the clutch in smoothly even if you let the pedal up a bit quickly.
The problem with the rods is getting them to go to the right place in what are fairly awkward tight places, I guess. And the bell cranks have to be kept lubricated.
Could be. The Land Rover's clutch was very fierce (especially after I replaced it).
Some boxes from the early days had plain cone synchromesh which never did work that well. Most modern boxes have the baulk ring type which gives a much stronger action.
One example of both would be the early Mini. Changed from cone to baulk ring after a couple of years of production. Difference was quite dramatic.
I doubt it's quite that simple. An alternator runs at about twice engine speed. Starter motors are geared down to something like 20:1.
There are combined units, though. Quite common on some motor bikes. Not sure about cars.
I have no idea, but I was curious to note that all Russian "cars" (Lada, FSO) that limped into the UK, and appeared to be based on 20-year old technology did their utmost to avoid cables, and invariably had hydraulic clutches. Even the handbrake was a rod linkage.
European cars seemed much more cabled up ... and then the more expensive ones had hydraulic clutches.
Quite a few customers used to carry a spare fanbelt, and a spare clutch cable, with the logic that if needed, the RAC/AA could fit them at the roadside.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.