Looking for '53 Olds with Dynaflow for article

[Jon Robinson]

Hello all:

I'm a writer for "Cars & Parts" magazine from Amos Press. In addition to full feature articles, I also write the monthly "GM Journal" column.

I just wrote the November "GM Journal" about the Hydramatic plant fire in 1953, and I would like to next column to be about the effect on the cars -- Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles with Dynaflows and Pontiacs with Powerglides.

Does anyone here have a '53 Olds with a Dynaflow? I would like to talk with you.

Thanks,

JON

jon@jongrobinson.com

www.jongrobinson.com

[Centurion]

Jon, there is a regular poster at the Cadillac-LaSalle Club forums who owns a '53 Coupe DeVille with Dynaflow. I'll take the liberty of sharing your information there.

The Cadillac isn't an Oldsmobile, but at least it will give you something until a Dynaflow Olds owner can be identified.

[rocketraider]

I'd say the Cadillac with Dynaflow would be a great C&P article in and of itself, since HydraMatic was always identified with Cadillac as well as Oldsmobile, and both marques had to scramble to keep an automatic transmission available when the HydraMatic plant burned.

Brian, no offense, but it's hard for me to imagine a Cadillac or Oldsmobile that doesn't shift ranges.

Always wondered what other carmakers who used HydraMatic did during that time, Rolls Royce in particular. Or was RR HMT production even affected by the fire, since they were theoretically building it themselves in England under GM patents and licences? I know Lincoln effectively shut down production till the HydraMatic plant was up and running again, but what about the independents who bought HMT?

[supersix]

I'd say the Cadillac with Dynaflow would be a great C&P article in and of itself, since HydraMatic was always identified with Cadillac as well as Oldsmobile, and both marques had to scramble to keep an automatic transmission available when the HydraMatic plant burned.

Brian, no offense, but it's hard for me to imagine a Cadillac or Oldsmobile that doesn't shift ranges.

Always wondered what other carmakers who used HydraMatic did during that time, Rolls Royce in particular. Or was RR HMT production even affected by the fire, since they were theoretically building it themselves in England under GM patents and licences? I know Lincoln effectively shut down production till the HydraMatic plant was up and running again, but what about the independents who bought HMT?

Hudson used Borg-Warner Automatic Drive in the full-size cars when the Hydra-Matics were unavailable. This seems to be mostly the earlier cars in '54, but I have never been able to pinpoint any serial number sequence that used them. My Hornet was built in June of '54, and is equipped with Hydra-Matic. The Jet used a different Hydra-Matic than the stepdowns. Being a poor seller, it was able to use the Hydra-Matic the complete model year. Apparently they had enough of them in inventory.

Edited August 7, 2010 by supersix (see edit history)

[Jon Robinson]

Centurian:

I heard from the Cadillac man. He has a lovely car, and he knows the mechanical adaptation of the Dynaflow into it very well.

Thanks for the help!

So far, I've found a couple of Powerglide Pontiacs and two Dynaflow Cadillacs. I'm still hoping to hear from someone with a Dynaflow Olds, and so keeps asking your buddies who they know.

The Hydramatic fire was one of the most interesting columns I've ever written. I found period newspaper articles that gave A LOT of numbers -- how many workers GM laid off and for how long and how many cars went Hydramatic-less. I also found an eye witness and some great photos.

"Cars & Parts" got a new editor three years ago, and he brough in some of us pros. If you haven't seen "Cars & Parts" in several years, check it out because the improvements have been tremendous.

JON

[D Yaros]

Jon,

Since you have done extensive research on this topic, perhaps you can answer a question?

I was under the believe that the date of the fire was so late in the calendar year that its impact would have been on the 1954 model year, not 1953. Is that accurate, or not accurate?

[Jon Robinson]

Dave:

The fire happened on August 12th, 1953.

Today, we think of cars coming out in the fall, and some car companies bring out the next year's models as early as June. Back in the '50s, though, the annoucement day for new yearly models was usually in January. GM would have been selling 1953 models right up to December.

Certainly, if the fire had happened just a month or two later, the effect would have been on the 1954 models. The impact would have been far worse, too, because, I'm sure, they were not building cars at maximum volume by August and September when they were winding down the 1953 run.

There's never a good time for a disaster like this one, but it probably happened at the best possible time.

GM's recovery from that fire was amazing. The Hydramatic was back in full production at a different factory in only four months!

JON

[PONTIAC1953]

hi jon, i'm not home yet, but i read your post, about having a couple of 53 pontiac/powerglides already for your article, i read somewhere that oldsmobile had enough hydra-matics in their inventory, to not run out of hydra-matics for new orders. i can say in 37 years of car shows and searching junkyards, i have never come across a 53 olds/dyna-flow combination, cadillacs yes, but oldsmobiles, no. i hope you'll find one, i'd like to read about it. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[rocketraider]

Wouldn't be at all surprising, given that Oldsmobile was quite proud of their HydraMatic. They invented it, after all!

Given the acrimony Buick had for HydraMatic, I doubt Oldsmobile was happy about using Dynaflow. Even though HMT's "jerkiness" was the official reason Buick disdained it, I suspect it had more to do with it not being designed in Flint.

[D Yaros]

Dave:

The fire happened on August 12th, 1953.

Today, we think of cars coming out in the fall, and some car companies bring out the next year's models as early as June. Back in the '50s, though, the annoucement day for new yearly models was usually in January. GM would have been selling 1953 models right up to December.

JON

My recollection is that in the 50's new cars debuted shortly after Labor Day every year. During the last week in August dealer showroom windows were usually papered over to keep out prying eyes?

[supersix]

My recollection is that in the 50's new cars debuted shortly after Labor Day every year. During the last week in August dealer showroom windows were usually papered over to keep out prying eyes?

This is also what I remember, in the September-October time span.

[Oldsfan]

I am thinking we have a member in the NAOC with a Dynaflow equipped '53 Olds. Now the problem is figuring out who it is...

Paul

[Jon Robinson]

pontiac1953:

Oldsmobile did, indeed, make cars with Dynaflow. We had one in the family, and I just found a 98 with a Dynaflow in Colorado.

My grandfather had a '53 Pontiac with a Powerglide. Another relative made a long-term loan of a '53 Olds 88 to my parents in the mid-1960s, and they had it for probably three years. My mother actually liked the Olds because, by that time, the freeways in Los Angeles connected to each other, and she really liked the Olds on the freeway.

rocketraider:

I've actually thought the Dynaflow was a response to Hydramatic jerkiness of a specific kind. Namely, I bet thousands of Hydramatics went unmaintained during the war, and by 1946-'47, they were jerky and noisy. The Dynaflow might have been a response to all the complaints about Hydramatic's jerkiness.

Like a lot of other things, the Hydramatic was great, but we really didn't have decent fluids for it when it first came out. Heck, we didn't really have decent motor oil until the '60s, and I'm sure the Hydramatic suffered just like the engines suffered from things like that.

JON

[Centurion]

One reason I've heard for Buick's rejection of Hydramatic was Buick's long-standing use of the torque tube drivetrain and rear coil springs. A step-gear automatic -- like Hydramatic -- would have transmitted too much vibration to the rest of the car.

Part of what makes the vintage General Motors cars so fun was the unique engineering philosophy and tradition of each of the divisions!

Regarding the introduction of the 1954 models to the marketplace, please keep in mind that the Olds, Buick, and Cadillac were all-new for 1954. If I recall correctly, these cars were introduced at a somewhat later-than-usual date, reflecting the extensive model changeover requirements. Does this sound familiar to anyone else?

[rocketraider]

Part of what makes the vintage General Motors cars so fun was the unique engineering philosophy and tradition of each of the divisions!

And I often think GM would be better off had they maintained their Divisions' autonomy!

Shared cost is one thing, but cookie-cutter platforms and badge-engineering are another thing entirely.

Hadn't stopped to think about that torque tube arrangement Buick had. I guess a HMT would have been pretty rough on something like that. What year did they change it?

[supersix]

I believe the 1960 model year was the last of the torque-tube. I would think the torque-tube would have withstood the shifts of the smoother dual-coupling Hydra-Matic, which debuted in 1956.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Brian,

The 1954 Automotive News Almanac lists these dates for new model intros:

1954 Cadillac, Jan. 20, 1954 (1953, Jan. 12, 1953):

1954 Buick, Jan. 8, 1954 (1953, Jan. 20, 1953):

1954 Olds, Jan. 20, 1954 (1953, Jan. 9, 1953)

The dates surprized me for their relative lateness, but that seemed to be the

case for many makers in the early-to-mid '50's.

Jon,

For the BCA National in Atlanta in 1993 (?), I scanned several months worth of my

Automotive News archive and created a large foam-core board of articles starting

with the HMP fire, its effects and aftermath on the industry. Most intriguing were the

illustrations of how other GM trannies were adapted for cars that used HydraMatic,

and The Detroit News photo of the devastated plant, levelled, after the fire.

I agree that it's a fascinating tale, and look forward to reading your article!

TG

[Centurion]

Thank you, Tom. The dates you've furnished clearly explain why 1953 model year production was affected by the Hydramatic plant fire, rather than the 1954 models.

[d2_willys]

I recall trying to find out information on the shift quadrant indicator of a 53 Olds with Dynaflow from another member, probably on another forum. One person replied, so there are some 53 Olds equipped dynaflows out there.

As far a Buick and the torque tube issue, this sounds like an excuse to defend Dynaflow, as Nash used hydramatics for years with a torque tube driveline, and they were pretty smooth machines.

Dynaflows IMO were good for one thing, torque converter evolution. Yes they are smooth, but not real responsive. Hydramatics on the other hand had the response, but also incorporated one of many features that modern day transmissions do today. It was mentioned by another member that these early hydramatics actually locked up in 4th gear, but not the way today's transmissions do. In the hydramatic there is a fluid coupling (not torque converter), that has a torus cover which is directly coupled to the flywheel and the front planetary. When in 4th gear the torus cover is locked to the driveshaft via the front and rear clutches. Pretty damn ingenious for something designed 80 yrs ago.

Back to the article, that would be great to read something interesting. Where do I find Cars and Parts anymore? No book stores have it, guess I will subscribe. Got any ideas of where to buy the magazine in Kansas would be appreciated.

[d2_willys]

I'd say the Cadillac with Dynaflow would be a great C&P article in and of itself, since HydraMatic was always identified with Cadillac as well as Oldsmobile, and both marques had to scramble to keep an automatic transmission available when the HydraMatic plant burned.

Brian, no offense, but it's hard for me to imagine a Cadillac or Oldsmobile that doesn't shift ranges.

Always wondered what other carmakers who used HydraMatic did during that time, Rolls Royce in particular. Or was RR HMT production even affected by the fire, since they were theoretically building it themselves in England under GM patents and licences? I know Lincoln effectively shut down production till the HydraMatic plant was up and running again, but what about the independents who bought HMT?

I believe that Nash used B/W's, while Kaiser, (and late 53) Willys, probably had enough since these were'nt big selling cars. Lincoln I believe geared up for Furd-o-matic switchover if necessary. This probably was the reason for Lincoln switching over in 55 to Turbo Drive, a heavy duty Furd-o-matic. I don't believe GMC and CHEVY trucks used hydramatics till 54 model year. Rolls was already producing their variation of hydramatics in their facilities and weren't affected. As was mentioned, Hudson probably had enough to get through the crisis. IMO, hydramatics are tops in automatics. Luke Beach and his group were shear genius's.

[junkyardjeff]

I have never seen a Olds with a dynaflow,I had two with the correct hydros and all the 53s in the junkyards had them too.

[Jon Robinson]

The column is finished and turned in to my editor. Thanks, everyone, for all the conversations about this.

Junkyardjeff, I found an Olds 98 in Colorado with a Dynaflow, and my parents had a used one in the '60s. They're interesting cars.

The story of the fire will run in the November "Cars & Parts," and the story about the resulting cars will run in December.

You can read the columns here: www.carsandparts.com

Subsciptions: (800) 488-5343

JON

[Guest saxxy60]

I believe that Nash used B/W's, while Kaiser, (and late 53) Willys, probably had enough since these were'nt big selling cars. Lincoln I believe geared up for Furd-o-matic switchover if necessary. This probably was the reason for Lincoln switching over in 55 to Turbo Drive, a heavy duty Furd-o-matic. I don't believe GMC and CHEVY trucks used hydramatics till 54 model year. Rolls was already producing their variation of hydramatics in their facilities and weren't affected. As was mentioned, Hudson probably had enough to get through the crisis. IMO, hydramatics are tops in automatics. Luke Beach and his group were shear genius's.

Hi;

Luke Beach was my great uncle. I noticed that you mentioned his name in this posting and thought that I would write to see if you had any first hand knowledge regarding his role in the development of the Hydra Matic transmission and or Rocket 88/98 engines.

As I recall he retired from GM in 1954 and went on to become treasurer of the Lamb Company, and continued to be a trouble shooter for that company until late in his 80's up until the time of his death.

As a young boy and man, I spent time with him in Royal Oak Mich where he lived for many years, but other than a brief conversation with the then president of the Lamb co in Windsor about 1993 who confirmed his regard in the auto industry and involvement in those projects....I have little knowledge of his contribution.

Any information from you or other members would be welcome.

Thanks...........Don

[Guest Bob Call]

I remember reading somewhere that when the plant burnt all of the HM's in inventory went to outside companies like Hudson, Kaiser-Willys, Lincoln, etc. Rolls and others in Europe built their own HM's under license from GM.

[Joseph P. Indusi]

I am very interested in the articles about the 1953 Hydramatic plant fire. I tried to go to Robinson's link but the issues having the articles are not available.

Is there someone who has copies he could email me or send by regular mail? I will gladly pay postage.

Joe