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

Hello folks - Years ago I owned a 1955 Buick, and loved everything about the car, except the way it drove. It was easily the slowest, most uninspiring, yawn-worthy off-the-line performance ever experienced with a V8 and even just getting up to speed seemed to take the scenic route to 45MPH. Best as I could tell, everything was "normal" - no noises, no shudders - nothing odd at all, except I refuse to believe anyone would have opted for that car in 1955 over say....well...anything else. I'm used to Powerglides, TH350 - that sort of thing, but I'd wanted a '55 Buick for years - but sold it after about 6 months - just wasn't the droid I was looking for. The transmission did have a leak if you tired to fill it too much, but otherwise I assumed this was the normal Dynaflow experience. After I sold it, I received some feedback that, perhaps, all was not normal and maybe there was some sort of undetected issue, but it was too late to worry about it. .......fast forward to now: I'm looking at a 1953 Buick Super- another car I've always loved....but...Dynaflow, and if my research is correct, perhaps not even as good as the version installed in a 1955. The transmission is reportedly fully rebuilt, but that won't mean much if Dynaflow is just a different kind of driving experience, than say a TH350 or Powerglide. Can anyone provide a real-world reality check on what you should really expect from a Dynaflow experience? and I'm not attacking Dynaflow, I just personally didn't like it, if in fact my '55 was a good example. If my '55 was "about right" for Dynaflow, I'll need to forget all about the '53.

Thanks. At first, I was going to do white under the trim, in the traditional two-tone theme, but now that I see it, I'm thinking about leaving it as-is. Wire wheels are a pain, but I've got a set on three other cars, so....whats one more at this point 😉

Ok - I'll add that to my list. I believe the carb may needs rebuilt. It was done 10 years ago with few miles since, but given gas sitting in there, probably needs redone. Yes, it does - so that's a great tip. Hopefully this is the cause, because it would be easy to resolve. I do use dielectric grease, yes, but who knows what the prior owner did - I'll use it when I change the wires /plugs. Yes- I also have the black soot. Plugs are in the plan of course, Autolite 85 is what I picked.

Hello all- I have quite a bit of experience with the venerable small block Chevy, and even the Jaguar XK, but zip as it relates to the Buick 322. My car is a '55 special, but the engine was replaced with a 322 from a 1956, has a two-barrel carb, and.....there are pops and small backfires that occur, and become more frequent, as the engine warms up. By the time its been running for say 2 - 5 minutes, these exhaust pops are very frequent and start to impact running stability. The engine starts just fine - instantly actually, choke is non-functional, but open. Sounds great at first, then starts to pop, runs rich, popping becomes more frequent over time. The car has not been on the road for about 8 years, the engine was rebuilt in 2010. I plan to start with the usual suspects - plugs, wires, cap, rotor, new coil, check timing, check carburetor - points have been replaced with pertronix (which I like, and use in most everything I have). I haven't touched a thing yet, and don't expect that it should run smoothly without a little tinkering, but I wanted to check for any Buick-specific issues or likely causes, since I've not worked with a 322 before. It sounds to me like several plugs are firing, again, at the wrong time - crossfire style - or that its running so rich there's enough eat to ignite in the manifolds - tends to smooth out with some throttle, but not entirely. If this were a Chevy, I'd suspect plugs 5 and 7 were crossfiring, or creating an inductive charge. Sounds to me like more than one plug is being naughty. Thanks, Allan.

LOL - Yes! I shaved them on my '57, and its a never ending pain to open the rear doors. The '57 is a post sedan though, so to get the look I needed to paint the posts and lose the rear handles - I was also 18 and stock was ....boring. If I were to go back in time, I'd leave her stock, but as a learning car, it was a great experience. She's going through a 2nd "refurbishment" right now - in that picture there, none of the seats are attached - I haven't actually figured out HOW to attach them yet, but I built a custom console...so they're going in somehow!

Hello all - Thought I'd introduce myself, and my car! I recently bought a 1955 Buick Special - its a car I've always liked, but aside from a day back when I was around 18, I've never found the right car at the right time. Back when I was 18, and I had no cars, no car experience and no money, I was looking for a classic car (and why not, clearly "young, inexperienced and broke" is the perfect time to get a classic car). I had my heart set on a 1957 Chevy, but one day as I was driving home (in my '84 dodge omni) I saw this car by the side of the railway track. Unbeknown to me, it was a 1955 Buick. It was green and white, in need of restoration, but for sale. I liked everything about it, but I'd been told that sticking to plain ol' Chevy or Ford would be a wiser choice for me, and so I stuck to my original idea. In a week, she was gone, and that was the last '55 Buick I'd come across, until last week. Fast forward some decades, and somewhat randomly, this '55 Buick pops up on my feed, and even though the add was really old - as in 30-odd weeks - I followed up anyway, and it goes without saying, it was a good thing I did. My '55 isn't precisely stock in that the original 265 was replaced with a rebuilt 322 - what I believe would have been a 1956 Century engine. The Dynaflow was rebuilt, as was the rear end. Right now, she has some backfiring, running quite rich and the delivery driver ruined my radius rod, but, aside from those grumbles, she's in decent shape. Will need new tires though, and MAYBE....wires. I did eventually get my 1957 Chevy, when I was 18. Still have it today, still "under construction", the first car I ever bought with my own money and had in my own name. Both these 1950's cousins share their space with a handful of other cars, from Mustangs to E-Type Jaguars.

Excellent - Thank you very much!

Well, the good news is that the way my lift works, it has two 4-ft X 18" pads that sit between the front and rear wheels, and lift the car using rubber spacers between pad and car frame - so the rear wheels can be on the ground, or completely free with the rear end supported with jacks, and in either case, I can still get under to do the work. I have some tall jacks that I could use to cradle the rear end as well. It sounds like the key advice here is to not leave the rear end hanging free. Part update: Found two rods, both claim to be from a 1955 Buick special, I got pictures of one and the car its coming from - '55 special, so I ordered them both just to be sure, coming from different places.

Thanks folks - I have a few feelers out and at least one of them reports having the right part, so that's good anyway. Another possibility reported that they did have some Radius Rods from the right age range, but that they were not marked when removed, and so they wanted to knwo the measurement of the bar - Does anyone have that? With mine being bent, there's no point measuring end to end or center to center, but if anyone happens to know the right measurement for the '55, that may open up another parts source. As for the bushings - I went ahead and ordered new ones, just because I figure the one in the bar I get will almost certainly be shot - either from use, or laying in a junk yard for years. Removal does look "easy" - my concern is that the rear end has been pulled to the right and so the left spring will be applying tension to the rod (in an attempt to realign itself), whcih I assume will make getting it off the pins / bolts a little challenging.

Hello everyone - I just purchased a 1955 Buick Special, and upon delivery, the truck driver told me he had accidentally bent the rear sway bar, and that it just needed a little bend back - Not being familiar with the Buick rear end, I didn't think much of it until I got home and realized that the "sway bar" is actually the radius rod, and its bent so much that the entire rear end has shifted about two inches to the passenger side - I have about 1/4 inch between the tire and the frame on the driver's side, and several inches on the passenger. The way I figure it, the bend effectively make the radius rod "shorter" and so it pulled the rear end to the passenger side. The bend is a nice bow, I see no other damage, but obviously this needs corrected. I have some doubts about my ability to straighten a 1-inch steel bar, so I was wondering if anyone knows: 1) A source for a replacement radius rod (I checked ebay, no luck so far) 2) Any special issues in removing the radius rod? - looks like a bracket and nuts - appears simple, though I am sure the tension will make removal a challenge. 3) Any tips on attempting to straighten the existing one? - from some schematics, it looks as though the rod should be dead straight - right now it looks like an English long bow. Thanks, and appreciated, Allan.