Treozen

Perhaps that's what was wrong with mine then. My '55 Buick was great, provided it was parked, but it was terrible getting up to speed - Literally the worst car I've ever driven in that regard.....and I used o own an '84 Dodge Omni that ran on 3 our of 4 cylinders. 😉 Well - I don't know what's going on with me, but that particular Oldsmobile didn't pan out either. I've never had a car deal go down in flames so rapidly, and it had nothing to do with the car. The sales manager I was working with seemed great, but their back-office person was...well....I really can't explain it in forum-approved language. It was bad enough that I told them to keep the "bleeping" car. So that's a 53 Buick, 56 Buick, and a 56 Oldsmobile that all seemed like 95% done.....but nope. I don't know....am I losing my touch? lol. I've got my eye on a different 56 Oldsmobile, though this one is a base model 88, and also a '55 Oldsmobile - which in some ways I like better. Actually - if I had the perfect Oldsmobile of that period, it would have a '55 grill, '56 side trim and interior, with '57 rear window. I may do that, I am sure a Buick will be in my future eventually.

.

Hello folks - I see some remaining traffic on the topic so I just thought I'd pop in and provide the update. I decided not to move forward with the '53 referenced in this thread. I did look closely at a 1956 - and almost went that route - but there were some logistical challenges and ultimately the owner and I were unable to come to an agreement. While I'd still entertain a '56 Buick, I happened upon a '56 Oldsmobile, and overall felt that car was a little closer to my comfort zone. That deal is not baked yet either, but I expect it will be. This of course means I'll likely not darken your doorstep again, or at least not for a while. I would like to thank the Buick community though for the feedback, thoughts, histories and commentary. Allan.

And being Scottish myself, I'd have probably complained about the cost of a clutch and blamed it on the English.

Jaguar for most of their automatic-equipped products from I think mid 50's through the switch to the Xj6, also used a hill-hold feature - not that I've ever found one these days that works. The earlier cars had a DG250, which I believe Studebaker used also, and later - mid 60's if I recall, they used a BorgWarner 65.

I've had ( and own) several other automatics that don't either - even if they probably should - but just something that came to mind. I do recall that the '55 I had could really get down there on the idle - much lower than I could ever get any other car.

Yes, I am aware - but most if not all automatics since probably at least the 70's have the ability to provide temporary roll-back protection while you shift from one pedal, to the other. In even older cars, well back tot he early 50's, some manufacturers provided a hill-hold or other brand-named system that would hold the car on a hill, if an automatic, for this exact purpose. In some cases it was via a solenoid that would automatically engage the brakes . My question was whether Buick and the Dynaflow system employed any feature like that - be it as part of the transmission operation, or other system. It seems thats not the case.

I guess this is one of those "different strokes for different folks" things. I understand your feeling, but to me, cars were made to be driven- used as intended, if you will. We all know cars hate to sit, and the best way to ruin a car, is to ignore it - and a quick jog around the block just isn't enough. Now to be clear, I don't use any of my classics as regular transportation and I'm also in Washington, so you can pretty much scratch mid October through March off the list for "likely driving days". But when I get the chance, that commute to work is some of the best mix of roads and speeds you can find, and yes I'll choose a car to go pick up the kids from school on the days I work from home - that sort of thing. The specialness never goes away for me - its always a treat and honestly wish I had more time to go places in them, but I don't, so the work drive is a great 3-hour excuse. And here is a question: Does Dynaflow attempt to "hold" on a hill like say a th350 automatic, or will the car roll back until you get the RPMs up? My 1955 couldn't hold itself even on my driveway incline - which is next to zero. It acted like a badly-driven manual, in terms of rolling backward until you got into the gas enough.

Well, I would only want one with power steering and power brakes, disk preferably - so "stock" wouldn't work either. That's really why this car is such a quandary - it has much of what I'd want. I don't worry too much about the subframe - everything I've read on how these are done makes sense, and this one was subbed by a shop, not some guy with a welder and a hacksaw 😉 , and based on the videos of the work, it was done correctly. I wouldn't use it as a daily, but I have a combination commute that features long country roads, some 55 MPH HWY, a few steep grades and stop and go traffic when I get into the city (and since its a 3-hour round trip, I drive through a few cities as well). Unfortunately, its never a leisurely drive at 40MPH with just me on the road - its in and out of smaller cities, through the country at 55 and up over hills headed toward Mt Rainier - so the cars I drive need to match and handle all types of terrain and modern traffic. My '68 Cadillac, C3 Corvette, '69 Mustang (before I sold it) all did this flawlessly. I also have a '67 Tempest that will get a chance to prove its mettle this spring. I do agree with you that my prior experience is weighing heavy on me. I'd love to find a '53 with open drive conversion, but based on the extent of work required - pretty rare. I also have a love for cars that doesn't want to see these classics hacked up - I'm ok with some modifications, but there comes a point where you've extracted the soul of the car, and I'm not in favor of that.

And therein lies the problem - I've received exactly two forms of feedback from multiple sources - but no middle ground, specifically: 1) Dynaflow is not a performance-oriented transmission, and could be considered "slow" off the line, but you'll have no issues keeping up with traffic, going up a hills, etc. We drive our car (insert all the places) and never had an issue. Its a great, smooth, reliable transmission and once you are used to the "no shifting" its a great experience. 2) Good luck getting over 60MPH, and take a running start at hills. Hills in traffic will be a nightmare because you are stopping and starting - no momentum. You can shift into low and then into drive, but that will eventually blow out a seal, and if you want to see reverse work - don't move the car until its warm and idled down. Also - it will eventually leak transmission fluid into your rear end, assuming all the fluid doesn't just leak out somewhere else. There is literally no middle ground. Its almost as though both are completely true, and the difference is in how the driver feels and personally experiences the car. Well, unfortunately for me, this car is near 2,700 miles away and getting a feel for it is not possible. My 1955 was a major let down, and it still haunts me as I consider this 1953. I'm leaning toward passing on the car and striking Dynaflow Buicks from my list - perhaps I should just admire them. I'm half tempted to buy it because I could then admire it up close, lol...but that's a bit of a waste. The 1953 Buick, Olds, Cadillac and Chevy are some of my favorite styles, and I think the Buick is the best of them stylistically. Its a tough decision. I'll let you know what I end up doing. If nothing else, I appreciate the help from the Buick community- not all brands are as helpful (looking at you Jaguar).

There are a few updates: 1) I believe this is a rear-steer setup. The steering box is adjacent to the engine, where the front of the box does not extend past the motor. I'd say the exposed steering shaft from firewall to box is not more than 12 - 16 inches - though that is a guess. Rag joint is effectively right at the box, no couplings or swivel joints were used. 2) Through more detailed pictures, the box is clearly a Saginaw 800, and a power steering box, its just not hooked up. There are no hoses or pumps. Owner assumed it was manual. This aligns with an early Nova. 3) I've been in talks with someone that specializes in Power steering conversions for a few brands, Buick included. They have a bracket, custom hoses and a 2nd generation GM pump that will run off the 322 and feed the Saginaw box the right PSI. If we imagine the Saginaw box still works, power steering seems achievable. 4) The 322 does have the dual grove crank pulley, it does not have the dual groove water pump pulley - so I'd need to source that. Ironically, this car had factory power steering, if the steering wheel is any guide. I keep reading up on the Dynaflow. Seems in 1953 it got an upgrade, but the overwhelming majority of posts seems to suggest this transmission is great so long as you live on flat land and don't mind a slow start. The "off the line" performance is less of an issue - but I live in Washington - its a hill, on a hill, with some more hills around here. It doesn't seem to make sense that a car as heavy as a 1953 Super would struggle with hills, but perhaps that was true for 1953, but not now. In today's traffic - its all stop and go up any grade, and where you can move, traffic is moving just as fast on hills as anywhere else. The opinions read to me as though the Dynaflow may have been up to the challenges of the day, but its not going to perform so well in modern circumstances against current traffic. Course, perhaps all these folks just hate Dynaflows. I like to drive my classic cars - to work (1.5 hours one-way), I don't just cruise them around or go on parades. I put them to work in modern highways and roads, in traffic, at peak hours (sometimes even in the rain...[gasp]) and between work and home I end up climbing over 700ft above sea level - I mean, not all at once, but ...hills....in traffic. I suppose at some point its entirely fair to understand that a 70-year old technology may not keep up with today's demands - and that doesn't make it bad, but you need to understand what it is, and isn't. I love Buicks and I like this car, but I feel like I'm getting Dynaflow cold feet - there's no room in my garage for a local-town parade car or something where I need to apologize to the evening commuters as we trundle up the third hill in a row.

Thanks - appreciate the offer to test. This particular car is a little more complicated than most - the engine (322), Transmission and rear end are reportedly rebuilt, but there is a twist - its sitting on an early nova subframe. This means it has updated front suspension and power disks, but...and this is the bummer.....still has manual steering. To look at it - you'd never guess anything was changed, even the interior is stock. I have the obvious questions now around how that subframe was connected, how they mounted the Buick 322 to what is presumably early nova engine mounts, and of course - what combination of Nova and Buick parts came together to make the steering work. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't use the Nova steering including the column and I'd imagine power - but it looks all stock '53 Buick, at least from the column anyway. These and other related questions have given me pause - If done correctly, I don't see this is a particular concern, but lack of power steering is. My '57 chevy has manual steering and that was ok when I was 18....but....I've moved on from being 18 a few decades ago, lol. I've asked for some more details - I think I'm comfortable with the Dynaflow - but its become the lesser of the questions I have at this point 😉

Thanks for all the feedback folks. I'm not looking for a hot rod or drag-strip performance. I guess I'll just need to decide if I want slow and steady, but I get the Buick shape I like, or whether I keep looking for something I'm more familiar with. I do have other classic cars, so this car doesn't need to be all-things - it can be its own thing.

That was sort of my thought on my '55. Unfortunately, this isn't a car I can personally test drive first, so I won't be able to get a feel for it.

That's great feedback. I never did try put it in low