Dynaflow vs 3-Speed transmission

[old-tank]

..from a comment on another thread to avoid hijacking...

...the one thing I really don't like about most of these beauties is the danged Dynaflow. What a pig.

Good grief Rob, now you're at it. It is bad enough that first time posters start off by asking how to 'get rid of that dynaslush' before ever driving the car. When is the last time you drove or rode in a car with a dynaflow driven for peak performance? The 55 Special dynaflow that I drove in high school and later routinely beat 55 Specials with 3-speeds. Every time the the 3-speed shifted I gained a fender length. The dynaflow was started in Low and held there until 60-65mph or whenever the points and/or valves floated. The 56 and later dynaflow had the switch pitch operational in Low as well as Drive are even faster...not as much drama as winding up in multiple gears. I like both transmissions for what they are, but the Buick 3-speed is a slow shifting transmission with the column shift. Do you need a video of a smokey burnout?

Willie

Edited October 12, 2012 by old-tank
spelling in title (see edit history)

[JohnD1956]

One vote for a video of a smokey burnout

[MrEarl]

X2

and I think a good photo op for that would be when Pete brings his lil 54 Special Sedan/3 speed and Mike his 55 Special Sedan/dynaslow to Fredricksburg.

[Bhigdog]

DF may be faster, and is certainly smoother but it can't compare to going smoothly and pleasantly through the gears on your way up to cruising speed..................Bob

[avgwarhawk]

I kind of get tired of rowing through the gears with my 3 speed. I like press and go truth be told.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

X2

and I think a good photo op for that would be when Pete brings his lil 54 Special Sedan/3 speed and Mike his 55 Special Sedan/dynaslow to Fredricksburg.

2nd that.

Ben

[Pete Phillips]

That would be a 264 up against two 322s (I have it on pretty good authority that the aforementioned '55 "Dynaslow" is powered by a 322 instead of a 264)...!

Pete Phillips

[60FlatTop]

Its a Buick. You get in, turn the key on, step on the gas and away I go sitting in my smaller living room. None of that jiggly, push up and down, engine revving stuff for me. I just wouldn't be a Buick.

Well, there have been a couple of playful moments power braking. If you haven't set next to a Mustang or Camaro at a light in a '60 Dynaflow Buick as you gently fed fuel and held the brake firmly you haven't lived. They just don't know what to do when your car raises vertically 6 inches and you look down on their lesser car.

Bernie

[NTX5467]

Well, there have been a couple of playful moments power braking. If you haven't set next to a Mustang or Camaro at a light in a '60 Dynaflow Buick as you gently fed fuel and held the brake firmly you haven't lived. They just don't know what to do when your car raises vertically 6 inches and you look down on their lesser car.

Bernie

Back in Spring, 1964. The new 64 1/2 Mustangs were out. There was one red convertible here in town (with a 260 2bbl, as I recall). At that time, my (favorite) uncle had a '60 LeSabre. At that time, he was NOT above a little hot rod action . . . so he and his wife had come up to visit us. I asked him if he'd seen the then-new Mustang. He replied that he saw a red one a little while ago . . . at the red light on the main drag. He surveyed the situation . . . when the light turned red, he tromped the Buick and left the Mustang "back there". It was a classy LeSabre 4dr hardtop, too! This was the same uncle that had put "portawalls" on his '55 Oldsmobile. He worked the late shift as maintenance worker at a chemical plant in south Texas. One night, he was on the way home and the Olds was flying. The next morning, his wife wanted to know why they had one blackwall tire on the car now. He said he thought he saw something fly off, but didn't see what it was.

Only thing is that if somebody NOW sees a Buick "rise and fly", they'll wonder if it's got hydraulics or air bags on it.

Old-Tank, I guess you haven't heard Pete talk about how "strong running" the 3-speed manual transmission Buicks were back then, compared to DynaFlows. Perhaps . . . it's "the feel"?

In SOME respects, "smoky burnouts" kind of loose their "punch" when the tire treads are only about 4.5" wide . . .

But . . . I'd lean more toward a DynaFlow if I had one of those cars. I can change transmission fluid and filters, but not too inclined to change clutches or throw-out bearings, even IF a torque-tube was not involved. Plus . . . a DynaFlow (of ANY model year) is more appropriate for a "high-line" car, such as Buick. Be that as it may.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[MrEarl]

In SOME respects, "smoky burnouts" kind of loose their "punch" when the tire treads are only about 4.5" wide . . .

THAT'S funny. And the "squeal" gets pretty high pitched too.

Yea Pete, now that you mention it I do seem to recall hearing something about a 264 for a 322 swap down in Austin. So that would mean they'll need to spot you about a length and a half. Or instead of chancing a blown up 5 bolt Special tranny, we could just wait a couple of years for when I bring Texas Pete back........

[60FlatTop]

In 1966 I had a black '60 Invicta 4 door HTP. I bought it right before the end of High School. I was 17. My Dad had already told me I was NOT getting one of those 409's or 327's. He took me over to Holley (you know that place) to show me the ideal sensible car. It was a 1961 Ford wagon with a stick 6.... and brown! I got him to go back to the Buick dealer in Brockport and look at the Austin 3000 they had in the front row. He had a weak spot for the A-100.

The black Invicta had just come in on trade and was irresistible to both of us. At $600 it was within range. The AH was over a thousand, maybe $1500.

I bought the Buick, my first financed car; $50 a month for a year.

My friend's mother had a '64 Ford Galaxie convert 390. Her sons claimed it was the fastest car in town. When I passed them on Rt 19 with booth our speedometers pegged they still claimed it was the fastest but admitted mine was a little faster.

When that Invicta raised under power braking a bad motor mount would make the engine lay over and pull the gas pedal to the floor. It wouldn't release until the torque backed off, maybe a hundred feet.

Ummmm, my Dad knew 401 from 409 was only 8. He taught me that sometimes you just overlook the small stuff.

Bernie

[page2171]

I like the Dynaflow. Nothing beats taking someone for a ride who doesn't know anything about Dynaflows and they keep waiting for it to shift.

[avgwarhawk]

The 48D being the bottom feeder with the 264 manufactured for the Special, it is only fitting she comes with the manual. Add that she has no PS or PB, it completes the picture. There is no shame in it's game. The power train is more than capable. Plenty of torque. She could use a overdrive gear. All the shucking and jiving with the manual. Wrestling the steering and applying double the pedal pressure to make her stop is the charm of the Special. I would not change a thing.:

[buick5563]

Yes, that model 48 has a 322 in it. I admit it. If someone needs to revoke my Senior Award then it is there for the taking. I'm joking Pete

I HAVE, even at last years Fredericksburg show, done a smoking burnout with Willie biting donut holes in the passenger seat.... But guess what? I had the 30 plus pound A5 compressor installed AND AC blowing on the back of our necks while I did it. If Willie brings the car to Fredericksburg (this is permission granted Old Tank) and if Bill brings his video camera, I WILL show once and for all that a Dynaflow transmission doesn't have to leak (mine doesn't) and can shred tires.

I plan on bringing a newly acquired 62 Special four door sedan, and my 55 is in Seguin.

Consider this a challenge.

[Guest wildcat465]

When that Invicta raised under power braking a bad motor mount would make the engine lay over and pull the gas pedal to the floor. It wouldn't release until the torque backed off, maybe a hundred feet.

Been in THAT situation in a 60 LeSabre with a 364. Damned scary until the distributor cap finally cracked on the firewall and shut the whole works down.

I can say I smoked a mid 80's Mustang 5.0 with a 62 LeSabre with a Dynaflow.

I own an old magazine from 1964 that tested both a 401 Wildcat ragtop with an automatic and a Dual Quad 4 speed Wildcat hardtop, guess which one was faster in the 1/4 mile?

[Guest Rob McDonald]

OLD TANK, I've been on the road and hadn't realized that I touched a nerve with you. I am sorry and you're right, it's been ages since I drove a Dynaflow equipped Buick and even longer since I drove my own. I am happy, though, to be proved wrong about shiftless performance by all these replies to your protest.

Regarding the smokey burnout at Fredricksburg, the combatants ought to enlist Coker Tire as a sponsor! Wish I could be there.

[NTX5467]

I own an old magazine from 1964 that tested both a 401 Wildcat ragtop with an automatic and a Dual Quad 4 speed Wildcat hardtop, guess which one was faster in the 1/4 mile?

That was in "MOTOR TREND", as I recall. Some good underhood engine pictures! I don't recall why the 2x4bbl didn't run quite to expectations, but if they wouldn't run any better than it did, it might be termed "overkill" (back then), but now "$$$$$" if all orig (now). Perhaps that 4-speed B-W trans knew it was out of place?

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[avgwarhawk]

I have never ridden in a Buick with a Dynaflow. I really can not comment on what it is like. I can say I went with the 3 speed, although I did not have any intention of purchasing a 3 speed manual, the Special I purchased picked me. She was complete, well cared for, nice paint, 264 rebuilt and paperwork to substantiate the claim that these things were done. I keep seeing mention of Winchester. Can I assume this is Winchester VA? If so, this is where I purchased this Buick. Belonged to a gentleman that was a home builder by trade and also owned a 53 Roadmaster. He passed away over 2 years ago now. His wife was ready to sell. I completed the purchase with her son. If this is the Winchester VA you are speaking of, perhaps someone here recognizes the Buick I purchased. Perhaps remembers the gentleman that owned the Buick before me.

[retirednow]

My '52 56C project came out of Winchester, Va. (2 owners ago) also; wonder if there's any connection? My mom lives about 20 minutes away in Front Royal-Dave BCA#46470 1952 56C

[60FlatTop]

I have been thinking about this Dynaflow perception for a couple of days. In 1966 & '67 when I had my car there were at least two 1/4 miles painted off with start and finish lines, maybe three. My '60 Invicta would show about 80 MPH at the end; pretty good for what is was.

I used to peg the speedometer frequently. Then found out with the snow tires it would only reach the 115 mark. I turned 18 in September '66, then off to the Navy in the spring. I grew up and got a little less crazy for about 3 weeks in 2008, but I'm over that now.

Bernie

[MartyWorld]

Greetings to all.

I owned a 59 Buick Invicta many years ago. I converted it from the Twin Turbine Dynaflow to a factory three speed. I also removed the 3.23 rear gear and replace it with a 3.91 gear out of a 60 Buick. The car was very fast. I was 18 at the time and therefore thought it was a great idea to convert the vehicle. If I had to do it again, I would have had the Dynaflow rebuilt. Dynaflow is a great transmission and is all Buick.

I have driven other Dynaflow equipped vehicles. In "low" they are incredibly fast from start. I have also driven several 63 Rivs with Dynaflow. In "drive" they give very adequate acceleration. The Dynaflow transmission is one of the incredible characteristics of a earlier Buick.

Marty

[Guest]

Sounds like most of you guys would be right at home behind a CVT! The one I have is seamless no shifting, seats five, will easily do 130mph and the car gets 42 mpg. At 70 mph and no incline, the engine runs at 1800 rpm, stab the throttle and the engine goes right to it's rpm that makes the most horsepower and peak torque and stays there (RPM) as the car accelerates for the most efficient acceleration.

Edited October 12, 2012 by helfen (see edit history)

[buick5563]

I think the main point, at least to me, is that the Dynaflow consistently gets a bad rap for being weak, slow, leaky, unreliable, heavy boat anchor, etc.

My earlier post was really so that I could show the non-believer / street rodder wannabees that for its time it was a great transmission, AND for modern times, it can be sealed properly and perform well. I personally have never driven a Buick three speed, so I can not make claims about which is "better". Besides, I'm too old to wanna row through gears in Austin traffic.

I just get sick of the "Dynaslush" , "Dynaslow" nonsense that gets perpetuated on this and other websites. Personally, it offends me (and I don't offend easily, if at all).

BTW, Willie said he was afraid to bring my car and have me blow it up, thus leaving him stranded, so this may have to wait until the car is back in Austin, where I know of a wide open parking lot to prove my point.

Just sayin'

Edited October 12, 2012 by buick5563 (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

That bad rap is not terrible to perpetuate. I don't sell cars much. I buy them. The Jaguars are gone from my list temporarily. I have had six and bought them all at great prices because of the perpetuated bad rap. And I would never say anything good about the, hell, they don't run most of the time and if you get one started it will probably catch on fire.

I think there is a Jag or a Packard in my near future. Maybe one of those slush boxes too. Don't forget, gs is going sky high. I have a few bucks and might be dumb enough to let you unload that horror story on me.

[Guest]

I think the main point, at least to me, is that the Dynaflow consistently gets a bad rap for being weak, slow, leaky, unreliable, heavy boat anchor, etc.

My earlier post was really so that I could show the non-believer / street rodder wannabees that for its time it was a great transmission, AND for modern times, it can be sealed properly and perform well. I personally have never driven a Buick three speed, so I can not make claims about which is "better". Besides, I'm too old to wanna row through gears in Austin traffic.

I just get sick of the "Dynaslush" , "Dynaslow" nonsense that gets perpetuated on this and other websites. Personally, it offends me (and I don't offend easily, if at all).

BTW, Willie said he was afraid to bring my car and have me blow it up, thus leaving him stranded, so this may have to wait until the car is back in Austin, where I know of a wide open parking lot to prove my point.

Just sayin'

I don't think it gets a bad rap from Buick owners. Dynaflow does what it's makers designed it to do, be a seamless powerflow through the cars speed range, but by doing this it sacrificed some efficiency, especially when compared to HydraMatic. Even efficiency was sacrificed in HydraMatic so you didn't have to shift gears like a stick shift car. I think it's great that divisions had so much diversity back then...you could really choose a different horse if you wanted. Just think of all the different automatic transmissions that came from GM. This will never happen again so enjoy them all.

[page2171]

Sounds like most of you guys would be right at home behind a CVT! The one I have is seamless no shifting, seats five, will easily do 130mph and the car gets 42 mpg. At 70 mph and no incline, the engine runs at 1800 rpm, stab the throttle and the engine goes right to it's rpm that makes the most horsepower and peak torque and stays there (RPM) as the car accelerates for the most efficient acceleration.

You are right. I have driven a number of Nissans with CVT transmissions, and where other people found them annoying, I found myself completely at home driving them. The one problem (and it is basically just a driving enjoyment thing) is that the engine the CVT is attached to has to sound good when it revs. The Nissans I drove with the CVT were good, but the Dodge I rented with the CVT just didn't sound good when the revs were up. Of course, I love the sound of the 401 in my '62 Electra with a slightly louder than stock exhaust.

[NTX5467]

I think it's great that divisions had so much diversity back then...you could really choose a different horse if you wanted. Just think of all the different automatic transmissions that came from GM. This will never happen again so enjoy them all.

In considering all of the Pontiac variations of "HydraMatic" in the 1960s, I wonder how much of that development MONEY could have been used to further refine things like Rochester "RamJet" fuel injection to get it less expensive enough to replace 4bbl carbs back then, on many engines. Think of the greater possible fuel economy savings AND greater power that could have been had, plus making "Fuel Injection by Rochester" a bigger selling point for GM, back then. The general public might not know the differences between "RotoHydraMatic" and other versions, but they sure could talk about "fuel injection".

Jus' pondering . . .

NTX5467

[Guest]

In considering all of the Pontiac variations of "HydraMatic" in the 1960s, I wonder how much of that development MONEY could have been used to further refine things like Rochester "RamJet" fuel injection to get it less expensive enough to replace 4bbl carbs back then, on many engines. Think of the greater possible fuel economy savings AND greater power that could have been had, plus making "Fuel Injection by Rochester" a bigger selling point for GM, back then. The general public might not know the differences between "RotoHydraMatic" and other versions, but they sure could talk about "fuel injection".

Jus' pondering . . .

NTX5467

Not sure exactly what your saying because Pontiac chose like Cadillac to use HydraMatic and of course Oldsmobile. After 1960 Pontiac chose to keep Controlled Coupling HydraMatic along with Cadillac until 1964 in Star Chief and Bonneville, and paired with Oldsmobile to use a new trans called Roto HydraMatic in Ventura, Catalina and Grand Prix until 1964. TempesTorque used some Power Glide parts and after 1963 Tempest used ST 300 with Buick and Olds.

As far as Fuel injection goes Pontiac had it in 1957-1958, but most of all fuel systems were designed and handled by Rochester, with each division telling them their specific requirements. There were other manufacturers, but they were not part of GM.

So development and cost of transmissions for Cadillac , Oldsmobile and Pontiac was born by HydraMatic Division, where as Chevrolet and Buick produced their own. Which was more economical COP naturally.

Edited October 13, 2012 by helfen (see edit history)

[buick5563]

An advanced search on "Dynaslush" turned up 18 results.

"Dynaslow" shows 21.

I'm sure "Dynaflush" will turn up results as well, but I have some driving to do...

[old-tank]

An advanced search on "Dynaslush" turned up 18 results.

"Dynaslow" shows 21.

I'm sure "Dynaflush" will turn up results as well, but I have some driving to do...

Don't even think about going to Google or Yahoo, etc...

[Guest Rob McDonald]

I'm still on the road (now in Spokane), driving a BMW with a 6-speed automatic of unknown provenance. It probably has Borg-Warner roots, like most European makes. Despite 65 years of development since GM's first "real" auto-boxes met the highway, mine still isn't perfect. At low speed, it can hunt up and down for the right gear, sometimes clunking into place. At 70 mph in cruise control, I can feel a downshift when climbing a hill. That's not a bad thing but it's not seamless, like Buick was striving for with the Dynaflow.

Couple of times many years ago, I drove a low-mileage '48 Oldsmobile coupe with a Hydramatic (it had the factory installed whale oil fluid, still a clear pale gold colour). Now that was a clunk-fest! It lurched through the gears like it was still in Driver Training. No wonder Buick determined not to go the corporate route and instead devised its own smooth-shifting automatic. I suspect that some trade-in-every-year Cadillac owners, who were lucky enough to find a Dynaflow in their 1953 model (after a fire levelled the Hydramatic plant), switched allegiance to Buick after that.

What I'm saying is that Dynaflow was/is a successful device that answered the needs of its target purchasers, who were generally mature people with a comfortable income. Sure, some youngsters bought new Buicks - refer to http://forums.aaca.org/f163/bringing-dads-1951-roadmaster-back-332363.html - but I don't think they would have claimed to be in the hot rod crowd.

Six decades later, the typical Dynaflow owner is not so far off the original profile - most of us are better than 50, we have some discretionary funds, and do not spend our Saturday nights racing for pink slips. Those of you with Buicks that actually move under their own power generally drive them pretty sedately, fully aware of gleaming bumpers and priceless grilles, as well as the limitations of brakes, handling, and slowly dulling human reflexes. Okay, I'm just speaking for myself on the last point.

I don't particularly like the way a Dynaflow drives, just like I don't like clunking along with a Hydramatic (or a BMW for that matter), but I love many other things about old cars. Honestly, I would not alter my Roadmaster to improve its performance; yapping about installing a 3-speed manual gearbox was just bench talk. This car has been sitting in the danged garage for far too long. Getting it on the road again is all I'm going to write about from now on. Please see http://forums.aaca.org/f163/rust-does-sleep-actually-life-57-a-292591.html#post1089164.

[Guest]

Couple of times many years ago, I drove a low-mileage '48 Oldsmobile coupe with a Hydramatic (it had the factory installed whale oil fluid, still a clear pale gold colour). Now that was a clunk-fest! It lurched through the gears like it was still in Driver Training. No wonder Buick determined not to go the corporate route and instead devised its own smooth-shifting automatic. I suspect that some trade-in-every-year Cadillac owners, who were lucky enough to find a Dynaflow in their 1953 model (after a fire levelled the Hydramatic plant), switched allegiance to Buick after that.

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

Two things about this section of your post. First, possibly the car you drove had a problem. My parents had a 50 Pontiac straight eight Hydramatic and it shifted with no problems at all. I have friends with early Hydramatic's in Cadillac's that shift with no problem--harsher than a un-modified controlled coupling hydramatic or a T-400, but acceptable in my opinion. Most car enthusiast especially performance auto enthusiast want to feel the car go up through the gears. The first thing I did when I bought my new 1969 Pontiac and my new 1976 Olds was to put a B&M shift kit in the T-400 and T-350,

Second, after the Livonia Hydramatic fire the remaining 1953 Pontiac's with automatic's used Powerglide and the remaining Olds and Cadillac's were built with Dynaflow. All three makes not only had trouble with their customers perceptions of how a automatic should perform, but at the time drivers who owned them had a hard time getting rid of them. Today, a far as collectibility goes I wouldn't touch one of those cars.

[Guest Rob McDonald]

HELFEN, those are both good points. That coupe was already over 40 when I drove it. The shifts were positive but harsh and maybe could have been improved by adjustments or a rebuild.

Regarding the 1953 FrankenFlow Oldsmobiles and Caddys: at the Portland Swap Meet in the early '80s, a friend of mine was admiring a very fine original '53 Olds 98 Holiday. Trouble was, it had the danged Dynaflow. As an Oldsmobile purist, he really had to hold his nose to buy it and I believe he still has it today. I don't think he ever got around to installing a Hydramatic, which he swore would be Job One soon as he got home.

Uh oh, already broke my promise - no more chitchat until I can report garage progress.

[NTX5467]

Helfen, perhaps my perceptions might not be completely accurate, but while Buick had one automatic (other than the short-lived Triple Turbine variation), Pontiac had several (even if they might have been paired with Olds and Cadillac) . . . with transmissions determined by the particular model they were in (as you detailed). I remember seeing the engineering drawings and explanations of how they worked (in my '66 MOTOR manual) AND it certainly appeared that they were "not cheap" to build AND probably had their own idiosyncracies in getting them to perform correctly after a rebuild (my suspicion, even before I heard Dennis Gage talk about how great the earlier HMs were "on the factory settings" as "original" transmissions). Certainly more "shift event timing" issues, it appeared. In short, what I'd term "very complicated mechanisms" which obviously were not inexpensive to build or get into production . . . just my suspicion, again.

I would suspect that either of those "other" automatics would get better fuel economy, behind the same engine, than what I'd term "a typical DynaFlow". At least they felt that way to me, when I'd be in a car with one of them . . . from the "positive shifts" I felt. If the internal rotational mass was not so great that it soaked-up too much horsepower. When one of our chapter members had a THM400 installed in his '62 LeSabre, he was amazed at how much better it performed . . . as was his younger-at-the-time son. Be that as it may . . .

Back then, it was Buick's character to have the smooooooth DynaFlows in them, just as it was Chevy's character to have their famous PowerGlide in their vehicles (until they were forced to do otherwise by GM, going out of their internal-manufactured transmission business). Olds and others had their own characters which the more upscale HMs fit into, too. Perhaps some of the bankers who bought Buicks, back then, liked the smoooooth power delivery, possibly even getting them to the bank in snowy weather as their "money" customers didn't want to drive their Cadillacs in that kind of weather? The more "sports minded" Olds and Pontiac owners might have liked the sound of spinning rear tires from the more positive shifts from their HMs, though . . . "The Sound of Power".

My point about Rochester's Ram Jet FI was that IF, repeat, IF GM had forced everybody into FI back then, the amount of crude oil saved might have been massive. But I also remember reading (in an old CAR LIFE) of about how, in the luxury/perf Bonnevilles that could have had Rochester FI on them, the way things interacted with the automatic transmission in them, "a kid on a bicycle" could beat them away from a red light" (IIRC, from the magazine). Obviously, some further refinement was needed? And, I suspect such refinement could have been done for less money than was spent by HM on the "several" automatics mentioned above . . . at least from the corporate GM point of reference than that of Rochester Products or HydraMatic Division. After all, Buick learned that customers will not pay for something they can't see or really feel, but would spend that same money it took to get a Triple Turbine DynaFlow (even if it was really better in many respects) on additional foam seat padding or something else they could see, touch, or brag about having on their car. Obviously, few wanted to get on the ground to see the TTD, but raising the hood to see Ram Jet Fuel Injection would be worth a whole afternoon at a relative's or friend's house!

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[buick5563]

That's OK Rob, you know I wasn't calling you out specifically.

I swore to myself earlier that I wasn't going to run this into the ground any further either, but a lot of times, people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I always blamed anything but the tired engine I had in my Special, UNTIL I rebuilt a spare engine (yes a 322) and sealed the torque ball. Suddenly, I realized that the car drove well. Took off well. Got better mileage. The trans in my Special has never been touched other than a pan gasket and torque ball retainer. At 120k miles it still gets 15-16 highway. Yes, a turbo trans might do better, but the engineering to erase the enclosed driveline would not be worth it to me. I shan't drag this out further.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Nothing to worry about, Mike. This has been an interesting thread!

Ben

[Guest]

Helfen, perhaps my perceptions might not be completely accurate, but while Buick had one automatic (other than the short-lived Triple Turbine variation), Pontiac had several (even if they might have been paired with Olds and Cadillac) . . . with transmissions determined by the particular model they were in (as you detailed). I remember seeing the engineering drawings and explanations of how they worked (in my '66 MOTOR manual) AND it certainly appeared that they were "not cheap" to build AND probably had their own idiosyncracies in getting them to perform correctly after a rebuild (my suspicion, even before I heard Dennis Gage talk about how great the earlier HMs were "on the factory settings" as "original" transmissions). Certainly more "shift event timing" issues, it appeared. In short, what I'd term "very complicated mechanisms" which obviously were not inexpensive to build or get into production . . . just my suspicion, again.

I would suspect that either of those "other" automatics would get better fuel economy, behind the same engine, than what I'd term "a typical DynaFlow". At least they felt that way to me, when I'd be in a car with one of them . . . from the "positive shifts" I felt. If the internal rotational mass was not so great that it soaked-up too much horsepower. When one of our chapter members had a THM400 installed in his '62 LeSabre, he was amazed at how much better it performed . . . as was his younger-at-the-time son. Be that as it may . . .

Back then, it was Buick's character to have the smooooooth DynaFlows in them, just as it was Chevy's character to have their famous PowerGlide in their vehicles (until they were forced to do otherwise by GM, going out of their internal-manufactured transmission business). Olds and others had their own characters which the more upscale HMs fit into, too. Perhaps some of the bankers who bought Buicks, back then, liked the smoooooth power delivery, possibly even getting them to the bank in snowy weather as their "money" customers didn't want to drive their Cadillacs in that kind of weather? The more "sports minded" Olds and Pontiac owners might have liked the sound of spinning rear tires from the more positive shifts from their HMs, though . . . "The Sound of Power".

My point about Rochester's Ram Jet FI was that IF, repeat, IF GM had forced everybody into FI back then, the amount of crude oil saved might have been massive. But I also remember reading (in an old CAR LIFE) of about how, in the luxury/perf Bonnevilles that could have had Rochester FI on them, the way things interacted with the automatic transmission in them, "a kid on a bicycle" could beat them away from a red light" (IIRC, from the magazine). Obviously, some further refinement was needed? And, I suspect such refinement could have been done for less money than was spent by HM on the "several" automatics mentioned above . . . at least from the corporate GM point of reference than that of Rochester Products or HydraMatic Division. After all, Buick learned that customers will not pay for something they can't see or really feel, but would spend that same money it took to get a Triple Turbine DynaFlow (even if it was really better in many respects) on additional foam seat padding or something else they could see, touch, or brag about having on their car. Obviously, few wanted to get on the ground to see the TTD, but raising the hood to see Ram Jet Fuel Injection would be worth a whole afternoon at a relative's or friend's house!

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

NTX5467, Pontiac was not unique in the GM family to have more than one automatic at a time. In 1956 Pontiac and Olds offered the older Dual Range 4 speed ("D") type on Pontiac 860 and 870 Chieftains and Olds 88's. New in 1956 was the 4 speed Controlled Coupling HydraMatic used by Cadillac called 315 Hydramatic, Olds called as Jetaway and used in Super 88 and 98, and Pontiac called Strato Flight-called from 1959-1964 as Super HydraMatic used in the StarChief for 1956. In 1957 all models of Olds and Pontiac switched to Controlled Coupling.

The amazing thing about the original HydraMatic 1940-1951, Dual Range HydraMatic 1952-1956, Controlled Coupling HydraMatic 1956-1964, and Roto HydraMatic 1961-1964, is when they are in fourth gear ( fourth range and third gear in Roto) only 25% of the engines power is run through the fluid coupling the remaining 75% is applied mechanically to the drive train. They are the most efficient automatic transmissions made until ( with the exception of Packhard Ultramatic ) GM started using direct mechanical lock up torque converters. If you understand how Controlled coupling works ( roto is also a controlled coupling A/T) you will notice that Rotos 2nd gear is in direct mechanical connection because the coupling is also the applier of the clutch and when it drans in 2nd gear it's in mechanical connection. Are these transmissions complex...not if you understand them. Are they expensive to build..... perhaps, but they last a long time if taken care of and take a tremendous amount of punishment. My dad and I had one in our 59 Catalina ( Super HydraMatic ) that we drag raced for ten years and it never broke. We modified it to hold gears, and shift faster/harder when it was new and afterwards just do maintenance.

As far as FI goes ALL 1957 Pontiac Bonnevilles came standard with Fuel injection. In 1958 FI was optional on all Pontiac's. Back in those days there were a few Pontiac's with FI that were national record holders they were very fast, Remember this system is in theory like Chevrolet FI because it's made by the same division.

Chevrolet at one time or another was running two automatic's at the same time too.1957-1961 Two speed Powerglige and one speed ( five element converter ) TurboGlide. Wasn't Buick using both versions of Dynaflow at the same time too. In 1964 Cadillac was using two Hydramatic's, the 4 speed Controlled Coupling and the T-400.

[NTX5467]

Thanks for the lineage on the various HydraMatic transmission. No doubt, they were tough as it was the "Hydro" of choice for serious drag racers for ages. Plus, it was what went into the GMC (and many Chevy) light-duty pickups back then. Still, it seems like a lot of "rotational mass" in those transmissions compared to later ones. When I got my '66 MOTOR Manual, I had the chicken pox so I had lots of time to read through the manual. Compared to the later 3-speed automatics, it just seemed like a lot of things having to happen in great synchronization for everything to be "right". It also had a full section on the new Ford C6 automatic, which easier for me to see it all happening. Be that as it may . . .

Bendix had had their "electronic" fuel injection "ElectroJector" system for several years, by 1957. From what I understand, the unit was prototyped in a '53 Buick V-8, with the unit installed in the rh front floorboard (vacuum tubes and all). When Chrysler tried it in '57 or '58 on the 300 letter cars, I understand they were subject to RF emissions from mercury vapor lights in street lights . . . so the few that had been sold were recalled and retrofitted with the 2x4bbl set-up. So, if GM had gotten behind the Rochester FI system on the bulk of its carlines, refined it more in the process, it would have been a coup of sorts in the industry. But getting dealership techs to be knowledgeable enough to work on it would have been a big issue . . . and still was, somewhat, in the middle 1960s. The fact that, at tha time, each of the GM "supplier divisions" were known for having the best stuff available (Saginaw steering items, Harrison a/c and heat systems, Rochester fuel system items, HydraMatic transmissions, etc.) so having a factory FI system could have been a big marketing point that Ford or Chrysler couldn't match.

(Back from the land of "What If" . . . )

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest]

Thanks for the lineage on the various HydraMatic transmission. No doubt, they were tough as it was the "Hydro" of choice for serious drag racers for ages. Plus, it was what went into the GMC (and many Chevy) light-duty pickups back then. Still, it seems like a lot of "rotational mass" in those transmissions compared to later ones. When I got my '66 MOTOR Manual, I had the chicken pox so I had lots of time to read through the manual. Compared to the later 3-speed automatics, it just seemed like a lot of things having to happen in great synchronization for everything to be "right". It also had a full section on the new Ford C6 automatic, which easier for me to see it all happening. Be that as it may . . .

Bendix had had their "electronic" fuel injection "ElectroJector" system for several years, by 1957. From what I understand, the unit was prototyped in a '53 Buick V-8, with the unit installed in the rh front floorboard (vacuum tubes and all). When Chrysler tried it in '57 or '58 on the 300 letter cars, I understand they were subject to RF emissions from mercury vapor lights in street lights . . . so the few that had been sold were recalled and retrofitted with the 2x4bbl set-up. So, if GM had gotten behind the Rochester FI system on the bulk of its carlines, refined it more in the process, it would have been a coup of sorts in the industry. But getting dealership techs to be knowledgeable enough to work on it would have been a big issue . . . and still was, somewhat, in the middle 1960s. The fact that, at tha time, each of the GM "supplier divisions" were known for having the best stuff available (Saginaw steering items, Harrison a/c and heat systems, Rochester fuel system items, HydraMatic transmissions, etc.) so having a factory FI system could have been a big marketing point that Ford or Chrysler couldn't match.

(Back from the land of "What If" . . . )

Enjoy!

NTX5467

I just thought of something. When we were discussing the harsh shifts that Buick engineers and product planners were concerned with Hydramatic I wonder if it wasn't just pride or something of that order that they insisted on their own transmission. The reason I say that is because other makes besides Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac used Hydramatic's in their cars;1950-1956 Hudson, 1950-1956 Nash, 1951 Frazer, 1950-1954 Kaiser, 1954-1955 Willys and 1950-1954 Lincoln.

The most famous and prestigious car maker of luxury cars had HydraMatic too and that was Rolls Royce, and they used the old "D" type into the middle sixties.

As far as Rochester mechanical Fuel injection goes in Pontiac's case was they just didn't sell enough units to consider using it for 1959 and beyond, less than five hundred in 1958. The price for optional Fuel Injection for a 1958 Pontiac was $500.00 and there were two engine options, one a four barrel and the other a Tri-Power with more horsepower.

[old-tank]

Now that the discussion has deviated from Dynaflow and 3-speed standard shift transmissions, my next question would be: Is Dynaflow faster than 3-speed step gear automatic. There is a local club member who has a modified '54 Buick (322 with TH350 adapted and 3.2 rear gears vs stock 3.4). I would like a few runs against that one, but street racing is out (fine for street racing in Texas starts at $2K). Is there anyone out there with a smart phone or ipad that can suggest an app to accurately determine 0-60 and 1/4 mile times? Independent runs would be safer, but less dramatic of course. I'm betting on the dynaflow of course.

Willie