Guest Julian Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) While I was at a car show Sunday I ran into a guy that put a 350 chebby and a turbo 350 tranny in a 62 98 2 door car. I asked him what he did with the 394 and hydramatic and he says. "I still have it" do you want it and I sez.. YEA!!! so he gave them to me.. the engine is disassembled no valves or cam but the rest is there.. Edited October 18, 2011 by Julian (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 He obviously thought it was worthless, trouble is now he's made the car itself worthless to a lot of us. Was this Ninety Eight yellow or beige by chance?So what are you going to do with it? Nothing but w/p and maybe front cover will work on your 57. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 going to hang onto it for now.. this car is maroon with white top. originally came out of nebraska. Is a pretty straight car. Front seat needs to be recovered but other than that it is a straight car. needs paint etc. I figured since it is a big block olds I would get it. that is a front mount engine correct? like the 57?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfireelvis Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I concur with Glenn; as the kids say vis-a-vis changing out the venerable 394 Rocket with a freakin' 350, what the ___??!!Hoping against hope that the car in question was indeed that the Cameo Cream (butter yellow)/Provincial White top '62 98 Coupe I've seen around with (I believe) an Olds 455 in it. Maybe someone will buy the car with a sense of history, what's right, etc., and restore it with the original power plant and drive train... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 going to hang onto it for now.. this car is maroon with white top. originally came out of nebraska. Is a pretty straight car. Front seat needs to be recovered but other than that it is a straight car. needs paint etc. I figured since it is a big block olds I would get it. that is a front mount engine correct? like the 57??hi, front mount like the 57 ?, no, last year for front engine mount below the crankshaft and harmonic balancer was 1958. but i don't see why you couldn't use the older timing cover if the 62 394 timimng cover isn't still cast iron. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Charles, I think you'll find all 59-64 371-394 engines have a front mount between timing cover and crossmember and two mounts at the rear bolted to the transmission and transmission support bar.59-62 use a stamped metal bracket to attach the mount to the cast iron timing cover; 63-64 thread the mount into the aluminum timing cover.This reverse tripod mounting setup is one thing that makes it so difficult to adapt a later Olds (or god forbid other) engine into these cars, but people apparently figure out ways to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chequenman Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Charles, I think you'll find all 59-64 371-394 engines have a front mount between timing cover and crossmember and two mounts at the rear bolted to the transmission and transmission support bar.59-62 use a stamped metal bracket to attach the mount to the cast iron timing cover; 63-64 thread the mount into the aluminum timing cover.This reverse tripod mounting setup is one thing that makes it so difficult to adapt a later Olds (or god forbid other) engine into these cars, but people apparently figure out ways to do it.I totally agree with you Glenn, good explanation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 hi glenn, well i learn something new today,lol, i was thinking maybe olds had changed when pontiac change the mounting in the 1959 pontiacs. it has been way too long since i had my 1960 dynamic 88 four door sedan back in the late 1970's. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I asked him why he put the chevy engine in it and he said that the 394 needed to be rebuilt and it was going to cost about $2500 to rebuild it so he got a running 350 chevy and stuck it in there. For the transmission he put an after market stick shift for the turbo 350. He said the hydrmatic pulled just fine just that the 394 burned a ton of oil. Still I would rather have had the big block 394.. well I gues I do have a big block 394 ..did these engines ever have a tri-power set up ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 hi julian, the oldsmobile 371's of 1957 and 1958 had a factory tri-power, olds named it J2, i don't see any reason why you couldn't put one on your 394, also on the ebay, i see aftermarket dual quads set up for the olds engine. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfireelvis Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I have seen Offenhauser intakes that accommodates a tri-power set-up for a 394; that being said, I'd say go with the original four-barrel and you've still got 330 hp and 10.25:1 compression with a SkyRocket 394. A definite added plus if the "slim-jim" was working pretty good; that is something in and of itself. Coming from the man who just had three of them rebuilt in the past thirty days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Julian, look on the heads and see what numbers you can find above the center exhaust ports. There's a machined pad on the LH that can tell us a lot about that engine. Also look on the trans ID plate to see which SlimJim it had.$2500 to rebuild it. I'd say that was cheap enough. The one in my green car could probably stand it, as much leakage and blowby as it has. I hope I can get by that cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 oh my, slimjim, i couldn't wait to it out of my 1962 grand prix, terrible, terrible transmission. car was so much more nicer to drive with a switch pitch turbo hydramatic 400, and with a pontiac 455 to power it with. i love oldsmobiles and pontiacs, but i won't have one with that awful slimjim. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chequenman Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 hi julian, the oldsmobile 371's of 1957 and 1958 had a factory tri-power, olds named it J2, i don't see any reason why you couldn't put one on your 394, also on the ebay, i see aftermarket dual quads set up for the olds engine. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. The 371 Tri-power doesn't fit 394 cu. in. engines. Head and Block angles are all different. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rsd9699 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Slimjim's were okay - just needed fine tuning to reduce the jerk shift but they were not the smoothest tranny govmo cranked out.The 60 Pontiac I had with the dual coupling was so smooth that at 75 when it shifted from third to forth at full throttle - the only way I knew it shifted was the roar of the 6 blade fan was quieter. Far smoother than the t-400 in my 69 Olds 98.Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 There was so much potential in the Roto Hydramatic transmission. Too bad they didn't build it strong enough. I liked the fact that in 2nd gear the trans was in direct mechanical connection to the engine as the coupling was drained. The only trans built with a fluid coupling and a stator!Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Hmmm............The only gripe I have ever had with the Roto Hydramatic transmission is the gear selector design in Starfire and Grand Prix applications. Just too darn easy to unintentionally depress the lockout button and surprisingly find you've selected Reverse when you wanted Lo. Not good for a variety of reasons.Note: "R" on gear selector display does not mean "RACE." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Even though those transmissions supposedly had a "reverse blocker piston" that extended out of the unit and physically prevented moving the lever to R above say about 10 MPH... I don't know anyone who has tested that feature. Certainly not me- I don't like the idea of breaking my Slim Jim.I'm bound to think L-R "mishaps" influenced George Hurst to develop the Hurst Dual/Gate shifter. Its first application was 63-64 Starfire/J-I/Grand Prix. In the "performance" side of the shifter, it was physically impossible to move it to R- L was as far as it could go. You had to go back up thru N and then back thru D-S-L to R. Even then there was a wire clip that offered resistance to move it to R. You had to think about what you were doing.I sure wish I could find a youtube of Bro. Dave Gardner taking about that good ol' boy driving the guvnah around in that brand new state car with an automatic transmission. "We was runnin' about 80 and I figured he wanted to, so I just shoved it on down in R for race"Bro. Dave was one of a kind. "Mister Charles, he war killed outright, but Miss Baby, she war fine till they tried to turn her head around!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfireelvis Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I have heard about Brother Dave; one of a kind it seems! I did see an ad on eBay many years ago for a Hurst shifter kit specifically designed it seems for the Starfire/Grand Prix Slim-Jims, as you could tell by the drawings of the console. Dummy me should have bought it, or at least saved a copy of it on my computer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rsd9699 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 If I recall the shift selector correctly in the SF, the plate that stands vertically was adjacent to the lever could be easily modified to have steps to make it have distinct inter lockings to reduce the low/race mishaps.Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 what are the "good" head #s or letters for these 394s. Picking it up this weekend..It still has the orig 4GC carb as well. LOVE those 4GCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 what are the "good" head #s or letters for these 394s. Picking it up this weekend..It still has the orig 4GC carb as well. LOVE those 4GCs.I thought they were all good:). Well, maybe not those on the low compression 2V version of the 394, but even those 394s had plenty of gitty-up and go for pretty much all but a drag strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think the 1962 head was #23; 62 guys correct me if not. Then as later Olds changed compression ratio with the piston and not the combustion chamber in the head, so all the heads were pretty much the same. A Ninety Eight engine should have been a 330 horse engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfireelvis Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I am fairly positive you are correct on all accounts, Glenn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Yep.. these heads have 23 on them...q...instead of a fluid coupling (torque converter) type thing, this tranny has what appears to be a clutch disc like thing that mates to the fly wheel.. what kind of gizmo was that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldsfan Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It is a dampner. The torque converter/fluid coupling is inside the trans, behind the pump.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Yep.. these heads have 23 on them...q...instead of a fluid coupling (torque converter) type thing, this tranny has what appears to be a clutch disc like thing that mates to the fly wheel.. what kind of gizmo was that??_______________________________________________________________________ First, don't consider a fluid coupling and torque converter the same because their construction is different. Couplings use straight veins and converters are curved veins. Roto Hydramatic has about a eight inch fluid coupling with a stator. It is the only transmission that has a fluid coupling and a stator. Normally stators are used in automatic's with torque converters. The answer to your question is Roto hydramatic equipped cars do not have a flex plate like most automatics because the fluid coupling is not large enough and when drained in 2nd gear do not provide enough inertia for smooth vibration free operation so Hydramatic Division provides a flywheel just like on stick shift cars. This is what your seeing. If your looking for the fluid coupling you cannot see it because it is located behind the pump. This is a shock for the young and un-initiated person who pulls one of these transmissions from a engine looking for a fluid coupling!:confused:Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketraider Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Hee, hee...Welcome to the world of the Roto, Julian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rsd9699 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The disc you speak of is used to cushion the engine torgue - thus the springs around the hub. The springs tend to break with age so if all the springs are good - you have something of value.The torque converter is housed within the body of the transmission itself.Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 The disc you speak of is used to cushion the engine torgue - thus the springs around the hub. The springs tend to break with age so if all the springs are good - you have something of value.The torque converter is housed within the body of the transmission itself.Ron_________________________________________________________________________ It's a fluid coupling!D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee-Oh-Pee Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Sorry to burst in, but this thread is too interesting and educational to let die.... the whole idea of the the RHM fascinates me... and as i've said before, scares the hell out of me, since I'm now a proud owner. It seems like such a quirky piece of equipment... I keep wondering what GM's objective was, since they already had reliable (and some would say, superior) alternatives when it was developed. Was it designed with the goal of more bang for (GM's) buck? To save space in the tunnel, and thus have more inside the car? Weight savings? The fact that Cadillac and Buick refused to use it has always spoken volumes to me. I've always felt I was extremely sensitive to what's going on in my automatics (mostly TH-400s and Torqueflite A-727s, but even newer Toyotas and Nissans, too). I can usually feel the nice shifts (even though my wife's Fusion 6-speed sneaks 'em by me regularly; especially when cold). I have no flippin' idea what's goin' on in my RHM. That initial "shift" or whatever you want to call it is imperceptible. Then, the 2-3 shift (if that's what you want to call it) takes the 394's RPMs WAAAY down (if it's ever gonna ping, I get one there) and the car takes off like a "Rocket"! Then I guess there's one more little, final shift. But I really don't know if it's doing everything it should be doing. Fluid looks and smells good, and doesn't leak (too much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Roto is the second and last generation of Controlled Coupling Hydramatics. The first Controlled Coupling was called just that from Hydramatic Division, sometimes they called it 315 Hydramatic. Pontiac called it Strato-Flight and later called it Super Hydramatic. Oldsmobile called it Jetaway Hydramatic, finally Cadillac called it 315 Hydramatic. This trans mission used two fluid couplings, the small coupling was used instead of the front clutch in the old "D" type Hydramatic. 315 Hydramatic was a expensive 4 speed unit and so a replacement was sought. Cadillac used this transmission from 1956- 1964, some 1964 Cadillac models use the new T-400. Pontiac uses this trans from 1956-1964. It was Pontiac's only auto trans from 1957-1960. It was used in 1956 Starchief, while 870 and 860 models used the old "D" type. In 1961-64 it was used in Star Chief and Bonneville. 1961-1964 Catalina, Ventura, and Grand Prix use Roto. Olds used Jetaway from 1956-1960. 1956 88 used the old "D"type. 1961-1964 all Olds went to Roto. This 2nd generation controlled coupling was cheaper and used less parts, but in some ways more complicated because it eliminated the large fluid coupling and bestowed it's duties on the little coupling. This little coupling is used as a coupling devise between the engine and transmission ( the old transmissions large couplings job ) and the front clutching of the planetary gear set ( like the old 315's small coupling ). Roto is a three speed unit and to make up for the loss of the 315's 3.97 first gear a torque multiplier is used in the coupling to increase torque multiplication. Most people consider the 1-2 shift to be the most pronounced because the coupling drains and goes into direct mechanical connection between engine and transmission and this is a almost severe R.P.M drop. It's not so much a problem at wide open throttle because the stator helps, but at light throttle it's very noticeable.Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee-Oh-Pee Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Well... this is indeed a steep learning curve, Don. Extremely interesting. I recall my Dad talking about his 54 Pontiac's 4 speed auto; and my uncle had a 65 Bonneville 389, which I'm guessing was a switch pitch TH-400. So if indeed there are only 2 shifts on mine, what I'm feeling is the 1-2 shift. Yeah, it's quite radical compared to other auto's, IMHO. But I guess everybody already knows that. I remember learning to drive on my aunt's friend's '63 Dynamic 88 and it did the same thing. I pretty much baby my car, so shifts are light throttle. I'm supposed to be on a waiting list for repro filters; they were originally due in October, but are supposedly still on the way...Thanks for the continuing education! Do we have a thread just for trannies? I feel a bit guilty for hijacking this one.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rsd9699 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 All I can say is thank goodness that Buick managed to make the robust t-400 after all the messing around with the squirrelly dynaflows....Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) All I can say is thank goodness that Buick managed to make the robust t-400 after all the messing around with the squirrelly dynaflows....Ron_________________________________________________________________________ Hydramatic Division of G.M designed and built ST 400. Originally installed in some Cadillac's and some Buick's in 1964. T-400 and all other derivatives was part of standardization process G.M. was heading for. One of the most noticeable of this process was the 1959 standardization on most G.M. greenhouses or canopies. D. Edited December 7, 2011 by helfen (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Well... this is indeed a steep learning curve, Don. Extremely interesting. I recall my Dad talking about his 54 Pontiac's 4 speed auto; and my uncle had a 65 Bonneville 389, which I'm guessing was a switch pitch TH-400. So if indeed there are only 2 shifts on mine, what I'm feeling is the 1-2 shift. Yeah, it's quite radical compared to other auto's, IMHO. But I guess everybody already knows that. I remember learning to drive on my aunt's friend's '63 Dynamic 88 and it did the same thing. I pretty much baby my car, so shifts are light throttle. I'm supposed to be on a waiting list for repro filters; they were originally due in October, but are supposedly still on the way...Thanks for the continuing education! Do we have a thread just for trannies? I feel a bit guilty for hijacking this one.Johnhi, pontiac and chevrolet never got to use the variable pitch turbo hydramatic 400 transmission, pontiac and chevy got the tm400 with the regular torque converter. only cadillac, buick, and oldsmobile had the variable pitch converter untill the end of 1967 model year. two things really nice about the variable or as some call the switch pitch converter is, much less creeping when sitting at a stoplight while in gear, and the extra passing acceleration when making the transmission kickdown a gear if you gave enough throttle. the pontiac catalina and the new grand prix in 1962 got the roto because the floor tunnel didn't have enough room for the better transmission that the starchief and bonneville got to use. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Edited December 7, 2011 by pontiac1953 (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 hi, pontiac and chevrolet never got to use the variable pitch turbo hydramatic 400 transmission, pontiac and chevy got the tm400 with the regular torque converter. only cadillac, buick, and oldsmobile had the variable pitch converter untill the end of 1967 model year. two things really nice about the variable or as some call the switch pitch converter is, much less creeping when sitting at a stoplight while in gear, and the extra passing acceleration when making the transmission kickdown a gear if you gave enough throttle. the pontiac catalina and the new grand prix in 1962 got the roto because the floor tunnel didn't have enough room for the better transmission that the starchief and bonneville got to use. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor._________________________________________________________________________ Charles, the interior of Bonneville and Star Chief are the same dimensions as Catalina, Ventura, Grand Prix so they could have used the floor. BTW did you see Hemmings Classic car magazine for this month?? Seems a AACA Junior & Senior award winning Catalina made the magazine. While restoring the car the owner decided he wanted the Super Hydramatic instead of the Roto. No floor cutting there. Don't know how he could have gotten a award with the wrong automatic! Anyroad the canopies, doors and glass are the same too, it's the trunk area that is seven inches longer.Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PONTIAC1953 Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 this is what i learned about pontiacs after i bought a 1962 grand prix, i was told that the catalina and grand prix got the roto instead of the super hydramatic because of the floor pan's transmission tunnel being smaller, i know for a fact that the 1962 grand prix bodies are made so that they sit one inch lower on the 1962 pontiac frame. i'm well aware of the longer trunks in the starchief and bonneville, that started in 1954 for pontiac with the introduction of the starchief, the starchief were eleven inches longer than the chieftain. i know for a fact, that when i installed a pontiac 1970 455 and 1967 switch pitch turbo hydramatic 400 into my 1962 grand prix, i had to mount the transmission crossmember under the lower lip of the frame rails instead of above the lip because of the car's transmission tunnel. sure made a real sweet high performance car out of the 1962 grand prix, a sleeper, looked and sounded stock untill you made the 455 growl. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee-Oh-Pee Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Don,What exactly is the Roto "torque multiplier" if the coupling is not a torque converter? So far, I thought the only difference b/w converter and coupler was the pitch of impeller and turbine veins, thereby multiplying torque. Also, if the coupling drains after 1st, what keeps continuity or communication within drivetrain? Finally, I'm still pondering the ramifications of the stator in the coupling. So if the Roto's twin-coupled predecessors had no stator, were they simply less efficient?Great stuff,JohnRoto is a three speed unit and to make up for the loss of the 315's 3.97 first gear a torque multiplier is used in the coupling to increase torque multiplication.Most people consider the 1-2 shift to be the most pronounced because the coupling drains and goes into direct mechanical connection between engine and transmission and this is a almost severe R.P.M drop. It's not so much a problem at wide open throttle because the stator helps, but at light throttle it's very noticeable.Don Edited December 7, 2011 by Bee-Oh-Pee (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 this is what i learned about pontiacs after i bought a 1962 grand prix, i was told that the catalina and grand prix got the roto instead of the super hydramatic because of the floor pan's transmission tunnel being smaller, i know for a fact that the 1962 grand prix bodies are made so that they sit one inch lower on the 1962 pontiac frame. i'm well aware of the longer trunks in the starchief and bonneville, that started in 1954 for pontiac with the introduction of the starchief, the starchief were eleven inches longer than the chieftain. i know for a fact, that when i installed a pontiac 1970 455 and 1967 switch pitch turbo hydramatic 400 into my 1962 grand prix, i had to mount the transmission crossmember under the lower lip of the frame rails instead of above the lip because of the car's transmission tunnel. sure made a real sweet high performance car out of the 1962 grand prix, a sleeper, looked and sounded stock untill you made the 455 growl. charles coker, 1953 pontiac tech advisor.________________________________________________________________________ Charles, this is more like the chicken VS the egg. Pontiac knew the Roto took less space so they designed the floor around it. As far as floor interior dimensions they are the same, but what a waste of money for two dies. I also know people who have put T-400's in Bonnevilles and still had to modify the floor to get the right engine/trans driveshaft angle correct. The G/P sits lower than the same bodied Catalina due to suspension alteration- the body and frame are the same on the two-two door hardtops. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now