Are all ST400 Transmissions Switch Pitch ?

[still looking]

Here is a pic of a transmission that I have.

The tag tells me it is from a 64, I think. ST400, BN 64.

Is it a SP ? Just a little confused after reading this; http://www.buickperformanceclub.com/switchpitch.htm

The converter has grooves inside as well.

There is an electrical connection on the trans but I am not sure if there are 2 connections or not.

I have not measured the converter.

I will take a pic of the pan and input shaft tomorrow.

[RoadShark]

This is usually a good place to start:

 

http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/oftsp.htm

 

Short story: '65-'67 Buick, Olds, and Cadillac.

[RivNut]

I read the article in the link and most of it is good info, but as usual there are questions being asked that will throw you a curve.  For example some one bearings the name Dynaflow into the conversation.  One other thing I read that is wrong is the mention of the diameter of the converter. ST400 converters measure 13 inches, ST300 converters measure 12 inches.  ST 300 converters are brought into the conversation because they'll bolt onto the ST400 flex plate.  Doing this increases the stall speed in the converter, something to do with putting a small transmission converter in the bigger transmission.  Buick delivered them this way in their Skylark GS series cars.  325 hp 401s backed up by the two speed ST300.  Use the smaller converter for better performance (drag racing) in the bigger transmission.

 

To get to your question. No, the ST400 for 1964 did not have a "switch pitch" converter and you cannot add a 65 - 67 converter to a 64 transmission.  You can ID the switch externally by the two pronged terminal on the driver's ides of the transmission and you can also ID it by looking at the input splines on the transmission.  The switch pitch trans has two sets of splines.  Looking into a converter you'll also see two sets of splines.

 

Now I realize that I need a life. This is my 9,000th post. ?

[still looking]

From what I have read, I thought this was your life. I had too.

 

Looked at the pronged sensor this AM it is a one prong sensor with no chance of a second being broken off.

The bottom of the pan has one dimple and the heel impression.

Spline on the input shaft has one set of teeth.

So by deduction then, this is not a SP trans or converter.

 

Thanks RoadShark, I read that one as well.

 

Thanks

PS: Someone should write a definitive book on the subject

Edited February 10, 2017 by still looking (see edit history)

[RivNut]

One other thing to remember is that the ST400 designation is a Buick thing.  Any transmission built by GM with the 400 in the name is basically the same transmission.  Buick had a thing for "Turbine" when naming their transmissions.  In the mid 50's it was the "Triple Turbine" another name for a Dynaflow, In the early 60's it was a "Twin Turbine" but it was still a Dynaflow.  ST for "Super Turbine" just kept the "turbine" name in front of people - a marketing ploy for 1964.  The only difference between the Oldsmobile/Pontiac transmission and the Buick transmissions for 65 - 66 was the shape of the bell housing. They were all Turbo-Hydromatic 400's, the name given them by GM, internally.   In '67 Buick introduced their new 400/430 then later the 455 engine.  At the same time, the new engine incorporated the BOP bellhousing design, but still the same internally..  At that point all of the transmissions were the same (perhaps other than shifter linkage.)  Chevrolet TH400 is the same internally but Chevrolet did not go to the corporate BOP (and Cadillac) bellhousing, they kept the one they'd been using since their V8 came out in 1955 with their Powerglide.  The best information for working on any transmission is in the Chassis manual for that year.  There are no secrets out there.     You've ID'd it now you know what to look for in the way of parts and you're comfortable knowing that the 400 series Turbo-Hydramatics are some of the best transmissions that GM produced.

Edited February 10, 2017 by RivNut (see edit history)

[RoadShark]

Agreed - that website is not 100% accurate.  I've yet to find the definitive overview of switch-pitch transmissions.  Each source has some info that conflicts with the others.  Even the excellent Ron Sessions Turbo 400 book only dedicates a small section to SP, and I'm not sure some of that is accurate.  

 

I called B&M when looking for a SP shift kit.  They did not know what I was talking about.  The folks at TransGo knew immediately and could talk in-depth about it.

 

The Chassis Manual for that year will certainly give that year's information, but when it comes to interchangeability and whatnot, I haven't found a great source yet.  I wonder what Hollander's has in it?

[rodneybeauchamp]

Ed, it may be your 9000th or whatever umpteenth post, but I really enjoy your input into every conversation.

 

Myself and no doubt many others appreciate your valued inputs, and that you do not come across as a " smart arse " or a " know it all " in your comments and explanations. You usually just factually tell the story, which is what I want as a reader and as a topic starter.

 

And that is what brings me back to this forum almost every evening, is the genuine interest you and others show in people's problems, with the aim to help them solve them properly, and not point score for yourselves.

 

Many thanks for your 9000th contribution and hope that you are willing to post at least that many more.

 

BTW am posting this upside down cos I am in Orstralia and had a wine or two .......?

 

Cheers Rodney