'59 394 mated to a slim jim

[Guest tboy]

I have a 1964 olds 98 and I'm putting a 1959 394 in it. Everything lined up with the slim jim tranny except now the motor wont turn. My friend said the splines have to line up exactly. Does anyone no if this is true? I'm scratching my head here. I put a breaker bar on the balancer and it wont move. Am I missing something? Thanks if anyone can answer I'm new here

[rocketraider]

59 used the Jetaway 4-speed HydraMatic. There may be enough difference between it and the SJ to affect it. I don't know for sure.

Coldwar comes on here in the Olds forums once in a while and he's knowledgeable about both these transmissions. You might also try over on classicoldsmobile.com or the HAMB site, lots of HMT traffic on both. Guy who goes by d2willys on those can probably help.

You do know for sure the engine is not locked up, right?

[Guest tboy]

The engine was rebuilt and turning fine before I put it in the car. I never pulled the tranny out of the car. I just put the flywheel and that clutch plate on to the '59 engine and bolted it up to the '64 slim jim tranny that was in the car. Is there something different on the splines in that tranny that has to line up perfectly to the clutch plate, also I havn't tried to start the engine I just put a breaker bar on the balancer and it dosnt want to turn. Thanks for your help

[Rusty_OToole]

Have seen this happen when the trans jammed against the motor. Why it would do this remains to be seen.

You will probably have to remove the engine and trans from the car, separate them, look for something jammed or measure the clearances and distances between engine and trans.

[Guest tboy]

Thanks for that info, You know I put the old flywheel and clutch plate back in so the tranny would fit. Do you know if there is any difference in the splines, like may be one is a little different than the others? I didn't notice anything but I didn't look that hard either. Everybody says it's easier to pull the motor with the tranny. To me it dosn't look like there is enough room. Thanks again for helping me out

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Clutch Plate? Roto Hydra-matics, aka Slim Jim, have no external clutch assembly between it and the flywheel. What are you calling a clutch plate?

If you have everything bolted up snug and tight the splines had to mate properly. Aside from this "Clutch Plate" question, it sounds to me like the flywheel is in a bind with the starter pinion. Pull the starter and re-install after confirming manual engine rotation with the plugs out.

If there is no rotation after that, I would suspect what you may have is a problem with the '59 bell housing and the '64 transmission. Actually if the 394 came out of a car with a standard transmission it is for certain the bell housing is not correct.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Guest tboy]

Thanks Jim, I don't know what you call it, but there's this plate with springs in it from the '64 motor that bolts on the flywheel. I put '64 flywheel and plate on the '59 motor. All the bolts and everything lined up, and the dowl pins to the tranny What came with the motor was a early hydro I think 1953 automatic 4 speed, but it was a custom '55 Camio chevy truck, does this again mean I have to remove the motor and trans and make sure I didn't blow it. I think the early trans is all cast iron. Not aluminum. Man I appreciate your help. I don't think there's many people that know about these cars. At least not in southern california

[Guest Bob Call]

Wow!. Sound like you have a mess. This clutch and flywheel is your problem. What I think you are saying is that the 59 engine came with a iron 4 speed Hydromatic attached. If this is the case what you have is a B&M Hydro-Stick. This is a Hydromatic modified for drag racing and it uses a flywheel and clutch and is shifted like a manual transmission. An automatic like the Hydromatic uses an flexplate and torque converter instead of a flywheel and clutch. So when you bolted the trans to the engine there is not room for a flywheel and clutch and everything is in a bind.

Pull it a part and get someone with auto mechanic experience to help you. You need the flexplate, torque converter and bellhousing that matches the 64 trans. You bolt the flexplate to the crankshaft, then the torque converter bolts to the flexplate, then the bellhousing bolts to the engine, and then the trans bolts to the bellhousing.

If you have the flywheel, clutch and the modified Hydro-Stick it is desirable to someone building a period drag race car. Advertise it on the H.A.M.B. at THE H.A.M.B. - Powered by vBulletin

You should be able to get about $400 to $500 for it if the trans is good.

Go on ebay and look for a 64 Olds service manual or at least look for a Chilton's Repair Manual that covers the 64 model year. This will help you understand what needs to be done to put this stuff together. Don't get discouraged. This is how you learn is by trying stuff.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Bob Call (see edit history)

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

One thing is for now certain, the engine is coming back out. If available you need everything that originally went/goes from the original '64 engine block back to the transmission from the '64 itself, or from a '61-'64 donor with a Slim Jim. Sorry about that, but it sounds that is just the way it is. Bob is right on target.

But let's get it straight exactly what we are dealing with here.

'59 394, '64 Slim Jim transmission. Are you sure it is a Slim Jim? A quick way to tell is they are basically flat as a pancake on the bottom front to rear. Or better yet shoot us the tag numbers from the transmission if you are not sure what is in that '64.

Jim

Edited May 4, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Guest]

'59 394, '64 Slim Jim transmission. Are you sure it is a Slim Jim? A quick way to tell is they are basically flat as a pancake on the bottom front to rear. Or better yet shoot us the tag numbers from the transmission if you are not sure what is in that '64.

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounded like a Roto to me because if you read his post he described the classic roto flywheel/non flexplate with springs in it, and of course it has a internal fluid coupling.

Jim, do you think there is any difference on spacing/length of the crank between Controlled Coupling Hydramatic and Roto? I can't see why there would be. Seems like the interchange should work.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounded like a Roto to me because if you read his post he described the classic roto flywheel/non flexplate with springs in it, and of course it has a internal fluid coupling.

Jim, do you think there is any difference on spacing/length of the crank between Controlled Coupling Hydramatic and Roto? I can't see why there would be. Seems like the interchange should work.

I have to say, I really hate trying to pinpoint a problem like this without being able to see exactly what we are dealing with and everyone using perhaps differing descriptions for various components. Which means we get into a lot of speculation that can often lead down the wrong path.

As near as I can tell from everything in this topic the problem is the Flywheel Housing (yeah Olds called it a flywheel not a flex plate). I'm strictly guessing here but from what I can tell from looking at four different references there is a front to rear dimensional difference in the bell housings used with '59-'60 engines verses the '61-'64 engines. The two bell housing applications are not interchangeable according to my interchange manuals. With that in mind I'm going to suggest there is a minuscule difference that has caused everything to be in a bind though successfully assembled together. Everything would probably work just fine with a bell housing from a '61-'64 394 engine, in the assumption the flywheel/bell housing we are talking about here was with the '59 motor.

Jim

Edited May 4, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Guest]

Jim, I'm much more a Pontiac guy than a Olds guy. I'm sure you know Pontiac was using two Hydramatic's from 61-64, Roto and Super Hydramatic (controlled coupling) actually three if you count Tempestorque. I do know you can swap Roto and Super from 61-64 (factory says you can't because floor pan has less a hump for Roto Catalina/Ventura/Grand Prix cars), but 59-60 will not interchange with 61-64 because there is a bell housing change. This change might have something to do with distance. Pontiac could have saved a lot of money by using the larger hump floor pan as the interior space and canopy are the same between Catalina and Bonneville, and saved some of us from cutting the floor just a bit for a Super 4 speed or T-400.

Don

[Guest tboy]

Here's what I got, the early tranny is a hydromatic #053-131012x. This is the one that came with the '59 engine. The slim jim is # 0a64-85167. Now on top of the '59 engine at the rear [i guess bell housing] has this number 574584-4 1/8 On the '64 engine it has this number 585786-4 1/8. I'm assuming the 4 1/8 is the depth. both of the bottom bellhousing parts fit both motors. These are the ones that hold the starter. I never installed the starter motor and tried to start the car. I didn't want anything to happen. Is there anyway that it could be stuck in gear. I know there is a neutral safety switch. Could this be the problem?

[Guest tboy]

Also I have the shop manual for the '64 and it has to be the slim jim. On the early hydromatic it has a torque converter. The slim jim has some type of plate that attaches to the flywheel and then it has on the tranny a male splined shaft that slides into that plate that is attached to the flywheel. I hope I'm making sense here and I appreciate all the help

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Jim, I'm much more a Pontiac guy than a Olds guy. I'm sure you know Pontiac was using two Hydramatic's from 61-64, Roto and Super Hydramatic (controlled coupling) actually three if you count Tempestorque. I do know you can swap Roto and Super from 61-64 (factory says you can't because floor pan has less a hump for Roto Catalina/Ventura/Grand Prix cars), but 59-60 will not interchange with 61-64 because there is a bell housing change. This change might have something to do with distance. Pontiac could have saved a lot of money by using the larger hump floor pan as the interior space and canopy are the same between Catalina and Bonneville, and saved some of us from cutting the floor just a bit for a Super 4 speed or T-400.

Don

Don, it would appear we have agreement on the '61-'64 bell housing having a difference due to the Slim Jim transmissions whether connected to a Pontiac 389 or an Olds 394. Not clear is what are/is the difference(s) from those used with '59-'60 engines. Probably not really important to know beyond knowing one cannot expect a '59-'60 bell housing to work with a Slim Jim.

As a side note, I've always found it most interesting that so much of a '63 Grand Prix interior and electrical is virtually identical to '62 Starfires. Saved my bacon a couple of times.....

Jim

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Here's what I got, the early tranny is a hydromatic #053-131012x. This is the one that came with the '59 engine. The slim jim is # 0a64-85167. Now on top of the '59 engine at the rear [i guess bell housing] has this number 574584-4 1/8 On the '64 engine it has this number 585786-4 1/8. I'm assuming the 4 1/8 is the depth. both of the bottom bellhousing parts fit both motors. These are the ones that hold the starter. I never installed the starter motor and tried to start the car. I didn't want anything to happen. Is there anyway that it could be stuck in gear. I know there is a neutral safety switch. Could this be the problem?

Before digging into the specific part numbers, I'm in the belief that Don has confirmed the fact the bell housing is different with use with a Slim Jim. Meaning you apparently have the wrong bell housing for the transmission on the engine. Your solution while sounding easy is simply to swap the bell housing, a not so easy task in reality.

The Neutral Safety switch is not a factor with engine rotation. The Neutral Safety simply kills the starter circuit if the transmission gear selector is in other than Park or Neutral. Only there to keep one from accidentally starting the car with the transmission in gear and taking out a garage wall/door or physically reconfiguring car by unexpectedly running into or backing into a stationary object.

Jim

[Guest tboy]

Could one of you guy's please explain to me the bell housing. Are you talking about the area in the rear of the engine that houses the flywheel? Why would all the bolts line up perfectly and also the lower unit that holds the starter fit perfectly. I always thought the bell housing was on the tranny. Thanks

[Ovalrace25]

UH-OH---- Has anyone suggested loosening up the transmission bolts, so the transmission can relax and move slightly away from the bell housing (bell housing is the big round part that bolts to the back of the engine housing the flywheel and clutch)

THINK about what can cause a bind... IF the transmission input shaft is TOO LONG and is jammed up tight inside the crankshaft pilot hole, the clutch will never release, but it will turn over and run IF you have the trans out of gear. NEXT is IF the pilot bearing shaft is TO LONG it could also wedge up into the clutch disc and stop all things from turning....

By pulling the bolts out, let this all loosen up you could turn it--- But also it could be Stuck from any of the bolts you used being too long.. Flywheel bolts, pressure plate bolts, trans to bell housing bolts....

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Could one of you guy's please explain to me the bell housing. Are you talking about the area in the rear of the engine that houses the flywheel? Why would all the bolts line up perfectly and also the lower unit that holds the starter fit perfectly. I always thought the bell housing was on the tranny. Thanks

Bell Housing The bell shaped part that connects the transmission to the engine. It also houses the clutch on vehicles equipped with standard transmissions, or the torque converter on vehicles with automatic transmissions.

With some power trains with automatic transmissions the bell housing is an integral part of the transmission case casting.

In the case of the bell housings in question the difference has to be inside the bell housing but did not require a complete redesign for a different mounting to the engine or a different bolt pattern for transmissions. Such subtle design changes from one year to another are not at all unusual in the automotive industry. Many things in the automotive world are backwards compatible but are not necessarily forward compatible.

Jim

[Guest]

Single fluid coupling, Dual coupling and Roto hydramatic's have a removable bell housings, unlike newer A/T transmissions which the bell housing is cast as part of the entire case. This allows the transmission part of trans to be used with different engine designs like I mentioned before with Pontiac and also to be used with the Olds engine and in the case with Cadillac to be used with single coupling and dual coupling ( D & P ) types. None of these three transmissions use a torque converter. They all use a fluid coupling or couplings, and the Roto uses a torque mulitplyer ( stator ) with it's fluid coupling.

----------------------

Jim, you must have posted while I was writing this, so forgive the same explanation on the bell housing. Just a FYI there are more bell housing changes on the original single coupling Hydro as this trans was not only used on Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac V-8's, it was also used on their flathead 6's & 8's too and also used on Lincoln, Nash,Hudson,Frazer/Kaiser,Willys. That was the beauty of a removable bell housing. The only new trans that come close is the multi bolt pattern 200R4.

Don

Edited May 5, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Single fluid coupling, Dual coupling and Roto hydramatic's have a removable bell housings, unlike newer A/T transmissions which the bell housing is cast as part of the entire case. This allows the transmission part of trans to be used with different engine designs like I mentioned before with Pontiac and also to be used with the Olds engine and in the case with Cadillac to be used with single coupling and dual coupling ( D & P ) types. None of these three transmissions use a torque converter. They all use a fluid coupling or couplings, and the Roto uses a torque mulitplyer ( stator ) with it's fluid coupling.

----------------------

Jim, you must have posted while I was writing this, so forgive the same explanation on the bell housing. Just a FYI there are more bell housing changes on the original single coupling Hydro as this trans was not only used on Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac V-8's, it was also used on their flathead 6's & 8's too and also used on Lincoln, Nash,Hudson,Frazer/Kaiser,Willys. That was the beauty of a removable bell housing. The only new trans that come close is the multi bolt pattern 200R4.

Don

No problem Don. It is a known fact that great minds often traverse the same gutter.........

[PONTIAC1953]

the original rocket V8 casting 1949 to 1964, 303,324,371,and 394's had what can be considered a bellhousing cast as part of the block itself, between that and the transmission is a separate piece known as "the hat", i'm surprised no one else has mention this fact before now. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest rsd9699]

Having had a bunch of Olds in this year range. Let me point out that the end of the crank shaft is where the problem is. The 56 through 60 olds had a "dished" pilot hole when used with automatic. To use the earlier hydromatic required a special pilot shaft bushing. The rotomatic had the spring cushioned flex plate and that again required changes to the pilot hole area of the crank shaft. The bellhousings all interchange except for the blocks with the "top hat" that is built into the 56 and older blocks with the cast iron hydromatic.

The twin coupling from a Cadillac or Pontiac (61 through 64 which is a far better transmisssion than the roto) will fit the 59 olds with no modification to the engine. It will require the engine being pulled and the either the crank shaft modified or the roto transmission modified. A lot of this modification stuff is covered in some of the older interchange manuals like Hollander in the transmission sections.

Also search on the net for crank shaft modifications for the rocket engine.

Ron

[Guest]

Thanks Charles, I forgot about the hat! Ron, You have solved the problem, the Pontiac crank pilot must be different for Roto and Super Hydramatic. I know most people say the Roto has a flexplate, if any of you have pulled one you'll know how heavy the thing is! In the Roto it is a must because the little 8" fluid coupling is not enough weight.

Don

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Pete, I have to thank you for making me feel stupid.....Actually you didn't make me feel stupid, I have to admit its been six years since I took a 394 out of either of my Starfires, but I should have well remembered the wonderful time I had getting the flywheel out of that so called bell housing that is part of the block casting.

So, I owe our friend with the problem an apology and after reading your and Ron's post he will know the true nature of his problem and the unfortunate circumstance of the '59 crankshaft not working with a '64 Slim Jim set up under any circumstance. To clear the crankshaft interchange up, Hollanders indicates that the crankshafts for '61 through '64 are directly interchangeable except for Jetstar 88s, but that is it. There are notes in Hollander's on the given crankshaft but they all have to do with using a crankshaft previously mated to a standard transmission or the other way around.

Jim

[Guest]

Hum Jim, Jetstar 88?? Gen 2 short deck 330? ST300 A/T?? 1964?

D.

Edited May 5, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest rsd9699]

tboy - Do you have pictures of the rear of the engine and the front of the rotomatic?

That 53 tranny is a super tranny and through the 56 model was used in drag racing - as I recall, it had problems after 10,000 rpms with internal leakage. There is a write up about on the net some place.

I am a collector of junk and pictures. I still have the 1959 transmission I pulled out of a super 88 in 1971 and can take pictures of the transmission if you need it for reference. It had a cracked head with less than 50,000 miles and had set for years.

A friend of mine had one too many beers and wrecked the front of his 60 98. We put the front clip of the 59 on the 60. I was sober - can't say the same for him. Bumper, grill, hood, and fenders all bolted up - both cars had a/c and that was all okay as I remember (no lines disconnected and 60 a/c worked afterword's). One weird looking car. There was a Ranchero in town also that had an Edsel front clip on it. This was a little town of 2,000 so you got to see both of them on the main drag quite often. People laughed but we were poor folks and did the best we could.

Ron

[Guest tboy]

Sounds like I'm screwed, I guess I'm going to have to pull the engine and tranny to see what's going on. I'll take some pictures when I get it apart. How do I post pics? This one guy told me to jack the rear tires up and see if the motor turns. Like as if it was stuck in gear. Thanks T boy

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Sounds like I'm screwed, I guess I'm going to have to pull the engine and tranny to see what's going on. I'll take some pictures when I get it apart. How do I post pics? This one guy told me to jack the rear tires up and see if the motor turns. Like as if it was stuck in gear. Thanks T boy

Pointless exercise! Even if the motor was free it's impossible to manually spin an engine enough for the Torus in the Transmission to transfer squat through the transmission to the rear wheels. That "one guy" needs to understand there is a huge difference between an automatic transmission and a standard transmission. He's obviously never tried to start a car with automatic by pushing it.

Jim

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Hum Jim, Jetstar 88?? Gen 2 short deck 330? ST300 A/T?? 1964?

D.

Just quoting from Hollander's. Thought it kind of strange and should have just ignored it.

[Owen_Dyneto]

He's obviously never tried to start a car with automatic by pushing it.

Jim, not the case with all automatics. For example Packard's Ultramatic could be push-started because the automatic had a rear pump that provided enough pressure to engage the direct drive clutch.

BTW, just curious why someone would want to mate a Slim Jim to anything, didn't it have a reputation as a particularly lousy transmission?

[PONTIAC1953]

also the single and dual range hydra-matics, cast iron powerglides, they had rear pumps too, and could be push started. the slim jim hydros were a terrible, terrible transmission with the way the thing shifted, i hated it in my 62 grand prix, couldn't wait to install the 1970 360 horse 455, and the 1967 buick wildcat variable pitch turbo hydramatic 400 trans. oooh how sweet it was to drive the grand prix then. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.

[Guest]

[

BTW, just curious why someone would want to mate a Slim Jim to anything, didn't it have a reputation as a particularly lousy transmission?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The trans is really not as bad as people make it out to be. It's a very innovative in it's design. It takes controlled coupling hydramatic to a higher level in it's operation ( not to be confused with durability and complexity of controlled coupling hydramatic ) because it has fewer parts and allows the small fluid coupling to act as the link with the engine (like any fluid coupling or a torque converter), but this coupling also controls the forward clutch (like dual coupling does on it's small coupling). When this unit is in second gear the coupling is drained and that means the trans is in direct mechanical connection. As said before the unit was designed for a load of about 350 flywheel horsepower. If driven sanely, and it is adjusted properly with proper maintenance (10,000 mile fluid changes) will last the average life of a car or longer. Roto and controlled coupling (dual coupling) hydramatic are the most efficient automatic's produced until lock up torque converters in automatics were produced.

Don

Edited May 5, 2011 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest rsd9699]

A comment on the rear wheels. If you do that - remember that unless the car has a posi rear end - with both wheels free to turn, they will turn - one one direction and the other the opposite direction. With posi, both would turn the same direction. Without posi needs 1 wheel on the ground to lock the rear end in order to turn the drive shaft. This may be a good test to determine if the transmission has been destroyed when the engine and transmission were bolted up. The aluminum transmission parts would have broken away before the cast iron block broke. If the drive shaft turns, the roto is likely okay - no turn not so good. In some gear other than park.

Roto was a good transmission when the linkage was set just right and there were no bad motor mounts. Out of adjustment and bad mounts makes for a terrible shift.

I would guess that when you have them separated, you can take a small grinding wheel and make the roto fit the 59. that should take a day to grind the hard crank shaft to provide clearances.

Also - it just occurred to me, did you pull the old pilot bushing out? (be sure to keep it - it will be tough to ever find another one - or sell it on fleabay).

Just wondering why you went the 59 route rather than rebuild the 64?

Ron

[Guest]

Clutch Plate? Roto Hydra-matics, aka Slim Jim, have no external clutch assembly between it and the flywheel. What are you calling a clutch plate?

If you have everything bolted up snug and tight the splines had to mate properly. Aside from this "Clutch Plate" question, it sounds to me like the flywheel is in a bind with the starter pinion. Pull the starter and re-install after confirming manual engine rotation with the plugs out.

If there is no rotation after that, I would suspect what you may have is a problem with the '59 bell housing and the '64 transmission. Actually if the 394 came out of a car with a standard transmission it is for certain the bell housing is not correct.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim, we know the Roto does not have a flexplate, but it does have a flywheel as a leveling off power impulses and providing a even flow of power for the engine and is the connecting element to the trans. I just checked my 62 Pontiac and in the end of the crank there is no bushing like there would be for a M/T car. The flywheel (for a Roto) is indexed to the crank by the offset bolt pattern and has another plate ( I think six bolts) which contains the dampening springs and a center section which has splines to connect it to the input shaft of the Roto, and of course these splines have to be lined up to slip together. I would hate to think if they were brought together not being aligned, and could it be possible to bolt the engine and trans together and bend this center section. I should have looked at all this before, you know the flywheel assy. is really two sections bolted together.

Don

[Guest tboy]

I think this is the problem and I didn't line it up, so I'm going to take it out and check everything. My friend said on early gm tranny's you have to line them up. Hopefully everything is ok. I'm crossing my fingers. I though the splines were all the same. It might have gone in and it's causing it to be bound up. I'll let you all know when I pull it. Thanks again T boy

[Guest tboy]

I found the problem, I need to make a spacer that goes all the way around the engine and tranny where they meet. It seems that it needs to be an 1/8" so it doesn't bind up. When you put them together the way it is, it shoves the spline in to deep, which causes it to bind.