63 riviera transmission questions

[offdensen]

So I've never owned a transmission before where reverse was last on the selector prior to this and just had a few questions about it.

 

1. Isn't this strenuous on the transmission to go from a forward gear to reverse without having neutral in between? 

2. Is there any special protocal to using one? All I've read so far is just to use the low gear sparingly 

3. How often should this transmission be rebuilt? X miles. 

 

Just a few questions I had, figured this would be the best place to ask. 

[RivNut]

When I was driving my car 63, I never did anything differently when shifting from R to D.  It's a pretty tough transmission.  I accidentally pulled the Dynaflow into R (old column shift and I was thinking about low gear on a three on a tree) on a 57 Buick. It killed the engine but I restarted the car and everything was fine.  No problems for as long as we owned it.  

 

One unique thing about the transmission is that you can push start the car.  The procedure is explained in the chassis manual.

 

The chassis manual also states that L should only be used to get out of mud or snow.  NO POWER SHIFTING. Besides it just don't work.

 

When I stopped driving my 63 (in 97) as a daily driver, I had well overy 180K on the car.  The tyranny had some minor leaks but it was still going strong - much stronger than the engine.  

 

Ed 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by RivNut (see edit history)

[SwedeDownUnderR63]

1 hour ago, RivNut said:

When I was driving my car 63, I never did anything differently when shifting from R to D.  It's a pretty tough transmission.  I accidentally pulled the Dynaflow into R (old column shift and I was thinking about low gear on a three on a tree) on a 57 Buick. It killed the engine but I restarted the car and everything was fine.  No problems for as long as we owned it.  

 

One unique thing about the transmission is that you can push start the car.  The procedure is explained in the chassis manual.

 

The chassis manual also states that L should only be used to get out of mud or snow.  NO POWER SHIFTING. Besides it just don't work.

 

When I stopped driving my 63 (in 97) as a daily driver, I had well overy 180K on the car.  The tyranny had some minor leaks but it was still going strong - much stronger than the engine.  

 

Ed 

 

 

I disagree with Ed regarding the Low, It works fine to shift between D and L. The following is from the 1963 owners guide and my chassis manual have the same information in 5-4.e:

"Low is to be used when going is particularly tough such as deep snow or sand, or on long steep grades. This range may also be used for braking the car speed on long or steep down grades. The shift from L to D or vice versa may be made while the car is n motion by merely flipping the lever. These shifts should not be made at speeds over 40 mph."

I have used it going down hill.

 

[Chasander]

One off the thinks I did with my dads cars (I was 16) to squeal the tires was to floor it in drive then pull it down to low. More then one time I'd miss low and hit reverse. Talk about tire squawk!!! The other favorite was to remove the air cleaner to hear that 4 barrel kick in.

[offdensen]

How smooth is this transmission suppose to shift? When I shift into low it won't shake but it will send the car forward, or at least it feels like it. Sometimes it does it when going into reverse too, but its not really noticable unless you are anticipating it. No problems going into drive. 

13 hours ago, RivNut said:

When I was driving my car 63, I never did anything differently when shifting from R to D.  It's a pretty tough transmission.  I accidentally pulled the Dynaflow into R (old column shift and I was thinking about low gear on a three on a tree) on a 57 Buick. It killed the engine but I restarted the car and everything was fine.  No problems for as long as we owned it.  

 

One unique thing about the transmission is that you can push start the car.  The procedure is explained in the chassis manual.

 

The chassis manual also states that L should only be used to get out of mud or snow.  NO POWER SHIFTING. Besides it just don't work.

 

When I stopped driving my 63 (in 97) as a daily driver, I had well overy 180K on the car.  The tyranny had some minor leaks but it was still going strong - much stronger than the engine.  

 

Ed 

 

 

Knowing you can get 180k actually gives me some piece of mind. How do these last so long? 

[RivNut]

They were overbuilt in the first place.  From what I've read, the M18 Hellcat tank destroyer built by Buick for use in WWII used a Dynaflow type transmission.  The radial engine used to power the tank destroyer put out somewhere between 375 and 400 hp.  They're very inefficient but oh so smooth to drive.

 

Ed

[offdensen]

What was the design rationale behind the sudden change in the shifter being pndlr to Prndl? 

 

Also in regards to the use in tanks: nothing but the smoothest cruising for our troops. 

[RivNut]

Not knowing for sure but I think it was a safety issue. I think the link below explains it but I don't read legaleeze too well.  No way to go from a forward gear to a reverse gear with out having to move the lever or, as in the case with a Riviera, depress the thumb button.  

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.102

 

 

[RivNut]

58 minutes ago, offdensen said:

Also in regards to the use in tanks: nothing but the smoothest cruising for our troops. 

Yeah, but with a top speed of 45 mph, you're not going to outrun a projectile from one of the German's 88mm weapons. It was probably more for the benefit of just being able to go when necessary. Not having to worry about killing the engine if you let the clutch out too quickly.  Under fire, you don't really need to want to think about clutching and shifting gears.  You just want to get the hell out of there. Also probably has something to do with the way a tracked vehicle steers.  In the tracked vehicles I've driven, you have an accelerator pedal and two hand brakes, one for each track.  Getting one track to go backwards while the other goes forward is probably easier with a fluid drive rather than a mechanical drive. Actually kind of scary.  To go as fast as possible, you put the accelerator to the floor and take you hands off the brakes. Whee.

[telriv]

If the engine is idling TOO FAST it will shift into low & reverse rather harshly. That was the biggest concern way back when. NEVER shift between low & drive with your foot to the floor. Wipes out the front pump plate.

[offdensen]

2 hours ago, telriv said:

If the engine is idling TOO FAST it will shift into low & reverse rather harshly. That was the biggest concern way back when. NEVER shift between low & drive with your foot to the floor. Wipes out the front pump plate.

I checked the idle with a tachometer I have on my timing gun and it's reading about 480 (only does increments of 10) so I think that it's good. It's not a real rough shift, but its just different than shifting into drive. Hard to explain. 

 

Shop book says 475rpms or 525 with a.c. pump. 

[RivNut]

Don't expect it to shift from L to D like other cars.  The L is not part of the shift sequence or the mechanics as it is in the later TH400's, Torqueflights, Cruise-o-matics and other automatic transmission.  L was designed for the purposes as stated in the chassis manual.  If L were to be part of the shift sequence, then you'd have a Power Glide or an ST300 - both two speed automatics.  Put it in drive and as Jim Cannon says "Enjoy that Dyanflow hum."  If you read up on the Dyanflow, you'll find out that a series of torque converts (when in drive) ALWAYS has you in a proper 'torque multiplication gear' no matter what speed you're going.  0 to 125 with no apparent shifts - what a cruiser!!!

 

Don't compare it to other transmission or expect it to act like one.  It's unique, enjoy it.

[KongaMan]

First, neutral-banging isn't good for any transmission.

 

Second, I've always looked at the Dynaflow as almost two separate transmissions: one for Drive, one for Low.  Changing between the two is a little different than shifting gears.  That can work to your advantage: there are many tales of folks who could limp home in L after D went out.

[offdensen]

That about answers all my questions. Never owned a dynaflow before and this has been educational. If anyone else has anything to add feel free to

[SwedeDownUnderR63]

1 hour ago, KongaMan said:

First, neutral-banging isn't good for any transmission.

 

Second, I've always looked at the Dynaflow as almost two separate transmissions: one for Drive, one for Low.  Changing between the two is a little different than shifting gears.  That can work to your advantage: there are many tales of folks who could limp home in L after D went out.

 

I can relate to the limping home part.

It happened to me in 76. The L worked fine but the fuel economy and the top speed was strangely enough a lot worse than before...

 

Me and my brother in law got a kit and tried to fix the transmission. It wasn't fun to have it put together with a screw left on the table... It is so easy today to take lots of photos when one disassembles something, not everything was better before...

 

I finally engaged an automatic transmission expert in Sweden ("Nicko Lamell" if any Swede is listening) and got it working nicely again. It is a great transmission as long as it works although not really made for racing.