62 leSabre trans Qs

[bullheimer]

hello boyz n girls! first post here! just got a new to me 62 lesabre in awesomely rust free condition. except the rear wheelwells of course. but solid floors and working doors and windows too. pretty clapped out interior pieces tho but both seats are there too. no windshield.. OUCH! $800 for a new one! really? holy crap!

 

long time poster on hotrodders, performance years pontiac, now amesperf.com, and NastyZ28.com as well.  sold my sweet 66 tempest and 72 camaro SS i built. still got a rust free almost (bottoms of both windscreens) 67 lemans that has gone nowhere fast in the 8 or so years i've owned it.

 

thing about this lesabre is it RUNS! yea! no first gear tho.  did some searching and found more than likely is sticky linkage thank God cause this is like a one off trans that a BOP will NOT fit. can anybody verify this?

 

Also, very oxidized and/or corroded or rusted electrical connections thru out.  has anybody ever tried dipping a whole connector in Tarnex?  and does anybody know what other transmissions might fit in this? very surprised to hear this is NOT BOP! bellhousing!  i guess i also found a post that says it is fine to just drive around in D w/o Low!  that this trans doesnt shift thru the gears anyway!!! that sounds weird.  but really, other than not much get up and go, it does seem to putt around town ok in just D. if that is the case then maybe i wont worry too much about finding another trans. but it would be nice to put in a 3sp like i did to my Tempest.  really woke it up.  so anyway. will be looking around for a parts source. dont need much tho! found a place that sells tail lights, and thats about all i need other than seat covers.

 

hope to meet lots o buick folks here. maybe i'll see you at hotrodders. maybe amesperf.com too. i have a pontiac 400 that is almost together. still have to sort out some dip stick issues, buy an intake, put on my oil pan, heads, and put it all together.  have a starter, valve covers, need the Qjet gone thru.  hoping honestly to have it running by next summer. (on a stand). would be cra to think the car would ever be mobile by then. it needs all new engine forward harness. i should rewire the whole thing like i did to my 56 pickup (same truck in both pics, in case yer wonderin).  i go by bullheimer on all these sites. and a couple others!    i'm lazy as hell that way, even use the same p/w!! haha!  if you see a bullheimer anywhere you can bet it's me.    pretty busy don't spend much time online so still. hope to see yaz around, if you have any elec. home/biz wiring qs you can pm me too. that's my bag.

 

thanks for reading and responding!!! i cant see anywhere to subscribe to this post tho. got a LOT TO LEARN ABOUT BUICKS that's why i'm here. dont have any pics of my buick yet. dont seem to have kept any of my tempest either, nor camaro. they are all online at hotrodders tho in my photo album if you care to look. nice to meet youse!

Edited July 16, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[rocketraider]

Quit thinking PowerGlide and welcome to the world of DynaFlow. It doesn't HAVE a first gear per se, and no perceptible 1-2 shift. Put it in D and mash the gas, and it accelerates up to road speed and never shifts. The torque converter(s) do it all inside the transmission.

 

You may be able to find a 64-66 Turbo 400 out of another Nailhead-equipped Buick. It will bolt up to the Nailhead block and give you 3 speeds even though 64 had a PRNDL shift sequence. Buick called it "Super Turbine 400".

 

With about any pre-1965 GM car, you have to put "modern" ideas out of your head. They all had their own engines, transmissions and suspensions and little to nothing interchanges. Olds/Pontiac/Cadillac used 3 or 4-speed HydraMatics, Chevy had PowerGlide or sometimes TurboGlide (a DynaFlow in all but name) and Buick had half a dozen different versions of DynaFlow. It's interesting to note that Turbo HydraMatic developed from the later Twin and Triple Turbine DynaFlows. 

[bullheimer]

oK that contradicts what i have heard about the 64 TH400's. i read they would not fit earlier blocks. since you have 5K+ posts tho i would tend to beliieve you.  But it would have to be specific to Nail head engines then. might be i read that the 64 BOP would not fit. i was reading strange things about these trannys for the first time.

also i heard what you said about the shifting. as i see it then, no real need for a low, unless i'm climbing a hill? just wondering, if low worked, what would it be like movng from D to L, and vice versa?

[rocketraider]

That's right. Buick used the Nailhead block thru 1966 and did not change the trans bolt pattern until the 340/430 engines came in 1967. Pontiac used later BOP-Cad pattern starting 1962, Olds 1965, and Cadillac either 66 or 67, I think it was whatever year the 472 appeared.

 

DynaFlow had a low range for hard pulling and I think it could be used for engine braking coming down steep grades. Some folks will start it in L and then shift to D which does give a perceptible (and usually audible) shift, but DF don't like it much and will let you know it by doing hateful things.

[bullheimer]

ok then to simplify somewhat. i would need a trans rebuild if spraying and freeing up the linkage doesn't work. or... just try and find a 62-66 Nailhead trans and probably have to rebuild it too. good times! looks like im stuck in DRIVE. Baby!

[JohnD1956]

The Dynaflow in Drive will surprise you when the car is out on the road. From 55 to the end of their production they were refined and quite responsive. But it does best when the engine is at its peak performance. You probably have the 364 cu in engine. Is it a two barrel carb?

[bullheimer]

it is a 2bbl but i thought it had to be a 401 because it is a 62! Hey Man! dont be burstin my bubble on having a 400 cid engine now!!!! Don't MAKE me put this pontiac 400 in this pig!

 

No really, whatever this is, it is a great running momo

Edited July 18, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[JohnD1956]

I think the 63's are all 401's. 61's can have a 364, but honestly, I am not certain about the 62.

[bullheimer]

i read somewhere on the internet in 62 the standard engine for all buicks was the 401.  the internet never lies! so, along these lines. if i was wanting to swap out the 2bbl for a 4bbl, would there be any advantage to that? and where would i find a 4bbl intake that would fit?  what are differences btwn this 364 and a 401? is there a site i could look at casting numbers? where ARE the casting numbers on these engines? any help appreciated. i would have to ASSume that the 364 and 401 of the same year would be physically identical, no?

 

also, are there adapters out there, like from Trans Dapt, that you know about, for putting a th350 or 400 behind a nailhead?

Edited July 18, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[JohnD1956]

Sorry. I cant answer your questions. I can only suspect that changing from a two barrel to Four barrel is not worth it without changing the camshaft. And while the 364 and 401 look identical i am not sure about manifolds interchanging.

[bullheimer]

ssssokay, i didnt buy this to restore or build a hotrod, just to be my wifeys daily driver. need to know what mill it is tho just for gp. buying misc parts. or, just nice to know if somebody asks me.  i am going with the 401 till i learn otherwise.  trying to figure out what to do with the corroded connectors on my fusebox and  fix my dash lites not working. do you know how many gallons the tank holds? i will fill it up and see if my gauge works. nothing inside electric seems to work. glad i got manual crank winders.

[NTX5467]

By "modern" standards, it's a good running car but NOT as quick away from the light as almost any current vintage car.  Think "profile", "smoooooth", and "cruise" as it doesn't need to prove anything.

 

Think 1966 Wildcat as a donor vehicle for the Buick-pattern THM400.  It should also be "switch pitch" rather than a fixed-stator torque converter (which was a 1968 model year "change").  There might be some linkage you'd need from the donor vehicle, too.

 

A chapter member had a '62 LeSabre (a 4bbl motor if I recall).  After the THM400 upgrade, he had to keep his (then) teenage son out of it.  The THM400 not only has a better gearset, but probably gets more power to the rear wheels.

 

As mentioned, each GM division had their own customer demographic to take care of back then.  Buicks were about "smooooth performance" and "smooth ride" back then . . . which is what their upscale customer demographic wanted.  THM had to come up with a smooooth-shifting THM400 to replace the DynaFlow, which they did (albeit with a slight gear noise so you could hear what was going on).  Once you (and your wife) get used to watching the speedometer climb rather than anticipating gear changes (which won't occur anyway), then you might realize how well the car performs and can adjust your driving style to the way the car performs rather than how it feels.

 

In normal driving, probably NO reason to even consider a 4bbl set-up.  The 2bbl should provide good power and torque up to about 3000rpm or so.  Clean up the carb and then tune-up the motor.  Buick motors were about TORQUE rather than top-end horsepower, and TORQUE happens at normal driving speeds and starts at off-idle acceleration.  Of course, with the limited torque multiplication of the DynaFlow, that additional engine torque is needed.

  

You can probably check the V8Buick website for engine ID and where it's located on the motor. 

 

Buicks were unique back then . . . which is how the customers liked it . . . AND MANY STILL DO.  GM was more of a group of 5 car companies (which had usually been independent before coming under the GM umbrella, although Chevrolet was created by Billy Durant after he formed Buick, with later GMC Truck and Coach being "the truck division" so transport trailers of new GM vehicles could be pulled by a GM-made truck), so each had their own Chief Engineer and way of doing things mechanically.  Each had their own target customer base and each played well to those audiences.  The one unifying factor was Fisher Body, as long as it was in existence.  Each division competed with their siblings and also Ford, Chrysler, and others for yearly improvements and customers.  It was a different GM back then with many supplier divisions being "world standard" when that really meant something.  GM products could touch EVERY aspect of a USA citizen's life in one way or another.  "Those were the daaaayyyyysssssssss!"

 

NTX5467

Edited July 19, 2015 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[bullheimer]

great reply, thank you.   that more than settles the trans question. dont think i'll ever see a wildcat getting scrapped out. will keep my eyes open whenever i am at a swap meet tho.   think i will leave the engine alone too.  it seems to be getting pretty hot just sitting in the driveway idleing tho!!  i know it does NOT have a shroud and that will make it hotter too. but i have to do a compression test to see if maybe there is a blown head gasket. driving it a little bit never made it hot.  just sitting there with not much air movement. it just doesnt take long. my truck could sit there all day. no shroud on it either (sbc).

 

really gotta get jiggy with doing something about connections behind the dash too

Edited July 19, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

If you have an infrared heat gun, you can check the radiator core temps from top to bottom, to indicate "flow" or "clog".

 

Does the engine have a solid-drive fan or a fan clutch?  A "shadetree" method of "helping" an aged fan clutch is to take a large Phillips screwdriver and dimple the two "side reservoirs" on both sides of the thermostatic spring.  With age, some of the silicone fluid can "leave" and putting the dimples in the sheet metal can decrease the volume of the reservoir and somewhat compensate for that loss, and then some, as in the fan clutch not decoupling until higher rpms.  Some of the earlier fan clutches were not thermostatic modulated and decoupled on engine rpms alone, unless the vehicle was moving enough that air flow through the grille was greater than what the fan was pulling through.  Several things to check in this area, including how close the fan is to the radiator (in the general dimension of 1-1.5", as I recall).  Also, ensure that the fan is installed correctly, as there is a "front" and a "rear" for the fan.

 

Please keep us posted . . . .

NTX5467

[bullheimer]

no clutch. going the right direction tho. not much of a fan tho, only four blades. @ an inch and a half from the rad.  great t stat flow once it opens tho.  i'll get to that compression test once i mow the yard. it's startin to get hot out there. hit 90 yesterday. that' s bakin for puget sound.

[bullheimer]

my test came back with one clynder low at 185, and a hi of 210.   the one weird one at 210? that seems like alot and it threw my average out. Would that indicate a c.r. of 10.5????

 

but wtf is with this timing chain cover's water neck thing?  what is that? thats just too weird man. i got signs of prehistoric water leakage going down from where it connects to the timing chain cover.  man i thought my pontiac engine was weird but this is like that, plus another 50%.  How do you know when your p/s reservoir is full or not? there isn't a dip stick on the cap! just a lid. might as well be a jar of pickles or something.

 

this engine compartment is like completely unmolested ex for a couple of small , maintenance type part replacements, like ALL the hoses. so overall, cant complain much. i'm glad i bought this thing.

 

would this motor respond to something minor as gasket matching?

Edited July 21, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

You can go in and "gasket match" the intake to cylinder heads (the "usual" place), but it's not going to make a huge difference, if that's what you're looking for.  I've seen some significant issues with SBC heads and the intake gasket, but I haven't seen any power figures for when those places were removed to gasket size.  In some respects, you want some turbulence in the mixture flow, but not disruptive turbulence.  If you have some time, it might not hurt.

 

Don't forget about the carb!  I did that on the orig AFB on my '67 Chrysler and it did make a difference.  With the full manual secondaries and no rear air valve, before I did it, I could go straight from idle to full throttle and not bog the motor.  Afterward, I got a slight bog doing that.  There was a little casting flash on the outer surface of the venturis and a few other places in the throttle bore.  THAT time was well-spent and easy to do with the carb apart to "kit" anyway.  Just a small file, but take care to not change the contours, just smooth the casting flash away.

 

I don't know that you can effectively equate compression test pressures to compression ratio, per se, as valve timing evens can have an affect upon cylinder pressures.  That one cylinder might have more carbon buildup, possibly, than the other ones.  Plus, cranking compression tests can also be relative to the altitude at which they are performed.

 

As for cooling fans, the 4-blade was the basic set-up back then.  A/C vehicles usually had fan clutches and 7-blade fans and fan shrouds (not knowing specifically what your LeSabre might have come with), generally.

 

There are times when you tend to better-appreciate the simplicity (and cheaper to produce) design of the SBC, but also the extra things that the upper carlines did with their engines to make them better.

 

Thanks for the updates!

NTX5467

[bullheimer]

Well, it's swap meet time next door in another week, so thought i would ask what the THM stands for in THM400 trans.  any particular thing i can look for to make sure that it is what I'm looking for. not turbo hydra matic is it, because i just am like everybody else on that and call it a TH400.  so it has to be specific to just 62-66 Nailhead engines.  that is what i would like some kind of identifying trait.

 

found this: http://nailheadbuick.com/automatic-transmission-options-for-the-nailhead-to-get-rid-of-the-dynaflow

 

i want a ROUND bell housing and two wire connector at the rear and a BOLT ON shift lever.  oh yeah, i guess i am looking for a ST400 now

Edited September 6, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

GM's Automatic Transmission Division was "HydraMatic Division of General Motors".  They built all of the automatic transmissions for GM cars, with the exception of Chevrolet (which built their own PowerGlides).  The original HydraMatics were very complicated 4-speed fluid coupling automatic transmissions, of which there were several variations for the different non-Chevy carlines.  Plus some 3-speeds in the earlier 1960s.

 

There WERE some Chevrolet models which did use HydraMatics.  They were all light-duty pickup trucks, though.  GMCs were similar.  This would have been in the earlier 1950s to possibly about 1961 or so (possibly a few years sooner, but I know of a PowerGlide pickup that a local dirt contractor purchased, with a PosiTraction, so he could better drive in loose dirt on job sites).  Back then, "serious pickups" had the NP465 "granny 4-speed" manual transmission, so automatics were a rarity, as far as I know.

 

GM started to get more standardization of their automatic transmissions with the 1964 model year, which is when the TurboHydraMatic 400s were introduced on some Buick models.  For the 1965 model year, ALL of the old HydraMatic versions were gone.  Hence, my terminology "THM400".  This was the first three-speed w/torque converter w/Simpson "step gear" automatic transmission for GM vehicles, which was the functional equivalent of the Chrysler TorqueFlite (full model year 1957 and upgraded to an aluminum case for 1963) and Ford's new "in-house" C-6 Cruise-0-Matic (prior Ford automatics were Borg-Warner derived units).  Chevrolet showcased the THM400 in their mid-year 1965 Caprice 396 V-8 cars, but kept the PowerGlide around as long as GM would let it and they had engines that didn't have too much power for it.  There was even a factory version with no torque converter, but with a clutch mechanism instead, for some of the lower-priced Novas.

 

The other terminology for the THM400 would be "Turbo400", which is more common in oral references to the transmission.  The smaller (size and torque capacity) THM350 came out for the 1969 model year.  Ford did their C6 for 1966 and then the smaller C4 came out a few years later.  Chrysler had their TorqueFlite 727 for the larger motors and the 904 for the smaller motors.  As things progressed, some variations of both the THM400 and THM350 happened, too, but that's another discussion.  These were all "state of the art" three-speed automatics which were in production for many decades, some later versions were updated to add ODs and electronic controls.

 

For the model years prior to the 1968 model year, the Buick-Olds-Cadillac THM400s had different "switch pitch" torque converters in them as Pontiac and Chevrolet had normal "fixed stator) torque converters.  The "switch pitch" feature used a different front pump and torque converter to vary the angle of the stator in the torque converter for a torque multiplication factor of 2.6 compared to about 2.0-2.2 for a fixed stator converter.  It used the "looser" 2.6 angle at idle and at greater throttle openings.  Idle was for less "in-gear creep" and at larger throttle openings, more torque multiplication for more acceleration.  In between, the torque ratio was a "tighter" 1.9 or so, for less converter "slip" at cruising speed, a little better fuel economy, and tighter throttle response . . . than the normal converters.  For some of this, "seat of the pants" would tell the tale, for other aspects, it would take instruments to tell the difference.

 

For the 1957-1961 model years, Chevrolet had a "knock-off" of the DynaFlow, called "TurboGlide".  It had a "GR" position in the place of "L" on the shift quadrant.  It stood for "Grade Retard".  The literature said it was NOT to be used as a "L" gear for acceleration, but as an aid to save the brakes during longer descents on mountain roads (for example).  An uncle had a '61 Impala 283 2bbl with that transmission.  He had the fluid and such changed regularly and never had a problem with it.  The car ran well and accelerated well with four people in it, too.  Just about the time you'd expect it to shift, it just kept building speed.  It did have a kickdown rod controlled "passing gear", as I recall, but you just put it in "D" and drove it.  Your DynaFlow should be similar . . . not unlike a newer vehicle with a ConstantlyVariableTransmission (CVT), as many Nissans have had for many years.

 

As for driving the smaller engine/DF-style transmission in a somewhat "heavier" car . . . it's best to use less throttle from a dead stop than "more".  There's generally noting to be gained from "more", but "more" can be better utilized once the vehicle is past about 35mph or so.  This keeps the manifold vacuum higher and keeps the vacuum advance in the distributor "advancing", which means more torque is being made AND it should keep the carburetor out of the "full enrichment" mode for more conservative fuel use.  Try this and I believe you'll see what I'm getting at.

 

Using not more than about 1/2 throttle from a dead stop (on a smaller-engine vehicle with "less gear") generally gets you away from the stop quicker, even on newer vehicles.  At work, I drive a Silverado 1500 4-door pickup, with the 6-speed automatic (4.50 low gear ratio!), 20" tire package, PosiTraction, and about a 3.23 rear axle ratio.  If I floor it from a stop, it barely chirps the rear tires.  If I really don't want to "make a scene", but leave quickly, it really squalls the rear tires (dang low rolling resistance tires just won't hook up!) when I'm not trying to make them do that . . . with less than a quick 1/4" of pedal movement.  My '77 Camaro was similar, other than some the tire noise, with a 305 2bbl, THM350, P225/70R-15 tires, and PosiTraction . . . anything past 1/2 throttle from a dead stop just didn't add anything to the mix.  At 40mph, it was a different story.

 

Hope this might help you understand how to get the best performance from your DynaFlow'd Buick.

 

NTX5467

Edited September 6, 2015 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Chasander]

From what I have heard trying to use a 64 and up trans on a 63 and older 401 is not easy, but can be done, be prepared to rework or change the crank shaft, the fly wheel is different also cross members have to be changed. If you go to the Riviera forum on this site much as been written.on this subject. I have not done this change but sounds like rocketraidier has so I will defer to his experience.

[old-tank]

For the 1957-1961 model years, Chevrolet had a "knock-off" of the DynaFlow, called "TurboGlide".  It had a "GR" position in the place of "L" on the shift quadrant.  It stood for "Grade Retard".  The literature said it was NOT to be used as a "L" gear for acceleration, but as an aid to save the brakes during longer descents on mountain roads (for example).  An uncle had a '61 Impala 283 2bbl with that transmission.  He had the fluid and such changed regularly and never had a problem with it.  The car ran well and accelerated well with four people in it, too.  Just about the time you'd expect it to shift, it just kept building speed.  It did have a kickdown rod controlled "passing gear", as I recall, but you just put it in "D" and drove it.  Your DynaFlow should be similar . . . not unlike a newer vehicle with a ConstantlyVariableTransmission (CVT), as many Nissans have had for many years.

 

NTX5467

Nice explanation.  The Turboglide was more closely related to Buick's short lived Flight Pitch or Triple Turbine of 1958-59.

[NTX5467]

Thanks for that additional information, Old-Tank.

 

NTX5467

[bullheimer]

found this awesome piece here: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/need-help-from-nailhead-peps.675314/

 

posts 4 and 8 will melt your brain.

[Guest Doug Burton]

Got in a little late on this thread, but you are correct about 1961 being the last year for the 364. 401 was standard starting in '62. The Dynaflow in my '61 has been perfect since I've owned it. No leaks,no slip, it just works, but if it ever does go out I will probably to the THM 400 swap. 

[bullheimer]

take a look at this for your reading pleasure:  http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/62-63-nailhead-trans-swap-406130.html#post3403034

[trp3141592]

Hi,

 

Re: windshield 

 

windshield.. OUCH! $800 for a new one! really? holy crap!

 

 

Rockauto shows the 62 Lesabre windshield available at $305.

 

--Tom

[NTX5467]

Just for reference . . . all replacement windshields, especially for older vehicles . . . are not all the same.  The source can be important as some replacement brands seem to be a little thinner in thickness than others, which can be very important when the windshield is held in by a rubber gasket, rather than "glued-in". 

 

If the thickness is not OEM, then getting it to seal once in place can be problematic.  A good friend related how, many years ago, that the glass company could not provide a windshield for a '55 Chevy that would not leak in the lower corners.  After several weeks of trying to get one that worked, he took a break and found another glass company whose product worked as desired with no leaks.  The ones that didn't work were allegedly "off shore" and a little thinner, but looked correct.  That was about 30 years ago, so I'd hope things are better now, but just make sure.

 

There can be some significant price differences in windshields, even for the same exact product.  Just depends upon which point in the distribution chain you're getting into.  Retail glass businesses will always be more expensive than wholesalers/brokers.  Where paying more CAN be good is if THEY break THEIR windshield in the installation process, rather than YOU having to order another one on your stack of dimes.

 

In searching for a vintage windshield, you might try the same "volume" automotive glass vendors the local new car dealers use (which might be Safelite operations).  I would hope this would put you in the network of quality installers who have OEM-level products to install AND know why OEM is best to use, when available.  Plus being able to tap into supply networks for "the good stuff".  NOT to say that there might be a smaller shop whose owner put the older windshields in "back then" might not be around and do a good job . . . just be sure of what you're paying for and that you pay when the job is completed successfully.

 

Looking through "new" glass certainly makes driving an older car more enjoyable!

 

NTX5467

[bullheimer]

found two other glass only companies i would trust alot more than rock auto for about the same range, plus shipping of course. what sucks is this car is going to be a daily driver because it's in black primer at the moment, and we have logging trucks on the road all the time. every windshield we have is cracked, most everybody goes thru them like diapers. most loggers will wash the mud off their rigs before they hit the road, but they get in a BIG HURRY to get to the mill for the last run of the day sometimes and drop crap all over the highways. i am in WA , and thats not Western Australia. ONE co i in portland, think the name is sanderson. the shipping would be minimal to here. but i am still ISO a guy to install it

[Ttotired]

I am in WA (and it is Western Australia) and I am trying to get a windscreen sorted now for my 58

 

I am using a glass supplier off ebay and shipping to here for it from them is $1400, then there is the price of the glass on top

 

Mick

[JohnD1956]

Oh man. $1400 shipping. For that price i'd take a trip and pick it up. But thats not convenient from WA anyway.

[Rooster]

Mick, have you tried Ralph Moore Autoglass here in Australia ?

Does a Cadillac or any other interchange ?   I know a Cadillac screen will fit my 1954.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Rooster (see edit history)

[bullheimer]

WOW! i thought i had it tough. and don't forget INSURANCE!!  yeah, you could buy that badboy a seat right on the plane for that kind of scratch. WHAT A RIP!

Edited November 10, 2015 by bullheimer (see edit history)

[Rooster]

Who are you paying $1400 to for shipping ??

There are local firms in Perth that could get it here much cheaper than that ( if you're not in a hurry )