Dynaflow Cadillacs

[JWLawrence]

Are there any Dynaflow equipped Cadillacs still out there? In the early 1950s the GM Hydramatic plant had a fire. Due to the temporary nonavailability of these transmissions used in Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles, and Pontiacs, they were equipped with other GM automatic transmissions. Cadillacs got Dynaflows and, I believe, Pontiacs got the Chevrolet Power Glides. Not sure about Oldsmobile. I expect these cars were re-equipped with proper transmissions over the years. Just wondering...

 

(o{}o)

[Bleach]

I think this was isolated to the 1953 model year. I've even heard of some '53 Eldorados that had Dynaflows in them. I don't think many would have opted to retrofit Hydramatics in a previously Dynaflow equipped car since IMO, the Dynaflow was as reliable a transmission as the Hydramatic.

[danleblanc]

Yes.  They are still out there, and yes, only MY1953 was affected.

 

All Eldorados received Hydramatic transmissions

 

Series 60 and 62 vehicles received Dynaflow transmissions.  A different crankshaft and an adapter was used to fit the Dynaflow into the car.  GM did not retrofit these cars when Hydramatic production resumed 9 weeks later.  I viewed a 1953 Series 62 sedan with a Dynaflow a few weeks ago, and, I'm about to bring home a 53 Fleetwood that I believe has the Dynaflow in it as well (I've only seen pictures of the car, so I'll know when I get an up close inspection).  A fellow Cadillac Lasalle Club member also has a 53 thusly equipped.

 

Oldsmobiles also received the Dynaflow

[Guest Bob Call]

Pontiacs were fitted with PowerGlide, all other divisions used Dynaflow. Outside customers, like Lincoln, received the Hydramatics that were in stock at the time of the fire.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Bob Call (see edit history)

[Bleach]

It's probably true that Eldorados got hydramatics though there are some obscure sources that mention Dynaflows in them.

The credible sources also mention that the 75 series also were exclusively equipped with Hydramatics.

[Buffalowed Bill]

Hudson used Studebaker DG200 automatics in a number of their cars during this period.

[Guest]

It's important to know that the Lavonia fire happened on August 12 of 53, so the vast majority of 1953 Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Pontiac are were HydraMatic equipped. Didn't all 53 production of cars end in September? I know if I were looking for a 53 it would have to be one built before the change. I've got a Pontiac book somewhere that says how many unit sales were lost because many people did not want Powerglide. Most likely the same for Dynaslush. 

[Guest MrNova]

helfen, you are obviously biased against the Dynaflow for some reason - it has an excellent reputation and to be honest, it's smoothness would only enhance a Cadillac. 

 

There was an excellent article in the Buick Club mag a while ago - I am sometimes able to read a friend of mines back issues - it certainly is worth a read.

[Bleach]

I agree the Dynaflow would have made the Cadillac a much smoother car to drive. The Hydramatic was a bit jerky in the 1st two shifts. I've read Dynaflow fans call it a Hydra-jerk.

[Guest]

helfen, you are obviously biased against the Dynaflow for some reason - it has an excellent reputation and to be honest, it's smoothness would only enhance a Cadillac. 

 

There was an excellent article in the Buick Club mag a while ago - I am sometimes able to read a friend of mines back issues - it certainly is worth a read.

I am a bit biased, but biased because of the facts. The Dual Range HydraMatic is a more versatile and flexible transmission and is also more efficient which is a proven fact. HydraMatic is also more efficient in a drag race when equal weight and horsepower compete. At cruising speed a fluid coupling is also more efficient than a torque converter as couplings tighten up where converters have a problem with their stators getting in the way of oil transfer flow after their multiplication effect gone. Yes there is a multiplication factor with a torque converter, HydraMatic addresses the problem with four speeds. Also HydraMatic has one other advantage called Split Torque, when the unit is in high gear (4th) only 25% of the engines torque is flowing through the coupling, the other 75% of the torque is in direct mechanical connection. This is means less slippage and greater mileage. HydraMatic was the most efficient automatic until the wide spread use of a torque converter with lock up. This fact finally led to the widespread use starting in the mid 70's to equip cars with lock-up torque converters. Packard did have this in later Ultramatic's however the problem of versatility because of it only being a two speed, which plagued Chevrolet also was the disadvantage of these two transmissions as well..

The fact that Rolls Royce also used  Dual Range HydraMatic into the mid 60's  long after Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac had moved to Controlled Coupling, Roto, and T400. speaks well of the design.      

Edited October 29, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[RogerPHX]

 

A friend of mine who lives in Delaware owns a '53 Fleetwood with Dynaflow.  I've driven the car as it makes an interesting comparison to my '54 Imperial.  I would come down on the side of the Dynaflow as being the more luxury-oriented choice for the Caddy.

[Buffalowed Bill]

The early three speed Detroit Gear/Studebaker automatic which debuted in 1950, had a lockup torque converter. So I guess that you might say by helfen's definition of being both a three speed and having the lockup TC, that it would qualify as the most efficient auto trans.

[rocketraider]

Oldsmobiles got Dynaflows when they ran out of HydraMatics, but they fortunately had stock on hand to cover most of remaining 1953 builds. Dynaflow Oldsmobiles are uncommon and unpopular in Olds circles except as an oddity.

 

What I read was that Buick Engineering called HMT "Hydra-jerk". I always believed that had to do with HMT not being designed in Flint, not necessarily because Dynaflow was the superior transmission. They're adequate but terribly inefficient, especially in heavier cars.

 

But yeah, I can see where a transmission with four distinct gear ratios would play hell with a torque tube.

[JWLawrence]

Thanks to all who replied to my question. Interesting discussion which could probably only be asked and answered on this site.

 

(o{}o)

[Guest]

Oldsmobiles got Dynaflows when they ran out of HydraMatics, but they fortunately had stock on hand to cover most of remaining 1953 builds. Dynaflow Oldsmobiles are uncommon and unpopular in Olds circles except as an oddity.

 

What I read was that Buick Engineering called HMT "Hydra-jerk". I always believed that had to do with HMT not being designed in Flint, not necessarily because Dynaflow was the superior transmission. They're adequate but terribly inefficient, especially in heavier cars.

 

But yeah, I can see where a transmission with four distinct gear ratios would play hell with a torque tube.

Glenn, the term Hydrajerk was coined by Buick engineers and to some extent this was true. I have a friend who has a 47 Cadillac club coupe and every time he goes to one of our Saturday morning coffee cruises AND brings his wife, all of us guys line up when they leave because when that car reaches the end of the lot in first gear and he lets up on the throttle to make the turn the trans goes into second and his wife's head is jerked back beyond the seatback. We all yell and cheer at this every time it happens.

  On a more serious note, HydraMatic Division was well aware of this problem and that is the reason Controlled Coupling four speed HydraMatic was designed. It's small fluid coupling and sprag clutches take the place of the forward clutch and band of the original HydraMatic to control the front planetary gearset softening up the 1-2 shift. BTW the front coupling drains and fills at 4 tenths of a second, however us racers modified the valves on the coupling to drain and fill at 2 tenths for racing purposes giving us that jerk back again that the old HydraMatic had. The faster a clutch or band operates does three things, a firmer harder shift=more efficient use of power=less slippage and last but not least less wear of the clutch/band parts.

[Guest]

Just a FYI on Pontiac's of 1953 in regards to the HydraMatic plant fire.

Total 1953 Pontiac production 418,619

38,914 Chieftain sixes of that 33,705 were Manual trans, 4,507 HydraMatic, and 702 PowerGlide

Chieftain Eight, total 379,705

68,565 Manual trans

293,343 HydraMatic

17,797 Powerglide

71.2% HydraMatic

4.4% Powerglide

Pontiac estimated the substitution of Power Glide cost Pontiac a estimated 30,000 sales.

[John348]

Pontiac estimated the substitution of Power Glide cost Pontiac a estimated 30,000 sales.

 

Still had to be better then zero

[Guest]

Still had to be better then zero

Of course John.

Something I want to say about Powerglide. When Chevrolet introduced Powerglide in 1950 it acted very much like Dynaflow. The reason was just like Buick's, to produce a seamless power flow from rest to high speed. Unlike the Powereglide most of us know, the early units from 1950 to 1953 started out in 2nd gear or high gear. Chevrolet recognized how sluggish and un-versatile and a mileage robber this was so in the 1953 model year Powerglide was changed so that the unit started in first and shifted to second. One of the downfalls of Chevrolets Turboglide ( 1957-1960) was it didn't shift. Chevrolet customers were now used to a 1-2 shift and had moved away from the shiftless concept.

[Guest AlCapone]

I am a bit biased, but biased because of the facts. The Dual Range HydraMatic is a more versatile and flexible transmission and is also more efficient which is a proven fact. HydraMatic is also more efficient in a drag race when equal weight and horsepower compete. At cruising speed a fluid coupling is also more efficient than a torque converter as couplings tighten up where converters have a problem with their stators getting in the way of oil transfer flow after their multiplication effect gone. Yes there is a multiplication factor with a torque converter, HydraMatic addresses the problem with four speeds. Also HydraMatic has one other advantage called Split Torque, when the unit is in high gear (4th) only 25% of the engines torque is flowing through the coupling, the other 75% of the torque is in direct mechanical connection. This is means less slippage and greater mileage. HydraMatic was the most efficient automatic until the wide spread use of a torque converter with lock up. This fact finally led to the widespread use starting in the mid 70's to equip cars with lock-up torque converters. Packard did have this in later Ultramatic's however the problem of versatility because of it only being a two speed, which plagued Chevrolet also was the disadvantage of these two transmissions as well..

The fact that Rolls Royce also used  Dual Range HydraMatic into the mid 60's  long after Pontiac, Olds and Cadillac had moved to Controlled Coupling, Roto, and T400. speaks well of the design.

Well said my friend ! Certainly supports your bias! Wayne

[PONTIAC1953]

Yes.  They are still out there, and yes, only MY1953 was affected.

 

All Eldorados received Hydramatic transmissions

 

Series 60 and 62 vehicles received Dynaflow transmissions.  A different crankshaft and an adapter was used to fit the Dynaflow into the car.  GM did not retrofit these cars when Hydramatic production resumed 9 weeks later.  I viewed a 1953 Series 62 sedan with a Dynaflow a few weeks ago, and, I'm about to bring home a 53 Fleetwood that I believe has the Dynaflow in it as well (I've only seen pictures of the car, so I'll know when I get an up close inspection).  A fellow Cadillac Lasalle Club member also has a 53 thusly equipped.

 

Oldsmobiles also received the Dynaflow

the hydra-matic shortage lasted 90 days, not 9 weeks.

[rocketraider]

One of the downfalls of Chevrolets Turboglide ( 1957-1960) was it didn't shift. Chevrolet customers were now used to a 1-2 shift and had moved away from the shiftless concept.

 

Think it lasted thru 61, till just before the aluminum case PowerGlide was introduced.

 

Turboglide was for all practical purposes a Buick Flight Pitch Dynaflow adapted to the Chevrolet engine and chassis. 'Glide drivers were used to a "shift" by that time and that, coupled with early TG's woeful durability, sealed its fate.

[Roger Zimmermann]

On a more serious note, HydraMatic Division was well aware of this problem and that is the reason Controlled Coupling four speed HydraMatic was designed. It's small fluid coupling and sprag clutches take the place of the forward clutch and band of the original HydraMatic to control the front planetary gearset softening up the 1-2 shift.

The front unit coupling is there to soften the shifting in 1 to 2 and 3 to 4. Depending of the model (especially the first generation), the upshift 2 to 3 can be harsh; it's not controlled by the front unit coupling.

[danleblanc]

I'm actually about to begin work on a 53 Fleetwood with a Dynaflow.  I plan on leaving it that way even though I have a Hydramatic for it.  I like that it will be an oddball Cadillac, and, well, going through the trouble of making the car something its not just doesn't appeal to me.

 

I have no issue with the Dynaflow.

[Guest]

 

 

 

One of the downfalls of Chevrolets Turboglide ( 1957-1960) was it didn't shift. Chevrolet customers were now used to a 1-2 shift and had moved away from the shiftless concept.

 

Think it lasted thru 61, till just before the aluminum case PowerGlide was introduced.

 

Turboglide was for all practical purposes a Buick Flight Pitch Dynaflow adapted to the Chevrolet engine and chassis. 'Glide drivers were used to a "shift" by that time and that, coupled with early TG's woeful durability, sealed its fate.

 

I think your right.John348 should know for sure.

[Guest]

The front unit coupling is there to soften the shifting in 1 to 2 and 3 to 4. Depending of the model (especially the first generation), the upshift 2 to 3 can be harsh; it's not controlled by the front unit coupling.

The 2-3 shift. Shifting into 3rd Coupling is empty which puts the front sprag clutch on, which puts the front planetary gear set in reduction ( yes it's controlled ) The rear unit ( in direct drive) sprag off and rear clutch on. Gear ratio is 1.55 to 1. Yes, there can be a harsh 2-3 shift if the T.V. linkage is not adjusted properly.  

Edited October 30, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Tom Andrews]

I found this discussion concerning Dyanflow Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles in 1953 to be most interesting. I was 16 when these hasty substitutions for HydraMatic were made.  I well remember a buddy  told me that when his dad's new '53 Olds was delivered with Dynaflow, he drove it around the block and refused to  buy the car. Dynaflow was smoother than HydraMatic but it wasn't called Dyanslush for nothing. In searching for a '53 Cadillac back in 1995, I was offered beautiful example equipped with Dynaflow. A few miles behind the wheel of this car was a great disappointment. It didn't feel like a Cadillac, it didn't sound like a Cadillac and it seemed,  er........languid. I later purchased a very nice, proper, HydraMatic Cadillac which I still drive with great pleasure. I do not find the shifts to be at all rough but quite smooth.  One of the problems the Buick people had with HydraMatic was the rigid torque tube drive line used in Buicks of that era. Rocket engine Oldsmobiles in 1949 and 1950 had somewhat noticeable shifts because of their torque arm and coil spring l rear suspensions.  Olds joined Cadillac with rear leaf springs in 1951  and this change was probably made in the interest of cushioning  the HydraMatic shifts.. As a sidebar to this I must comment that as kids, we always found the little "bump in the back" at full throttle acceleration in an early rocket Olds to be  very exhilarating. In fact, the leverage of the torque arms caused the lightweight Olds Eighty-Eight models to very obviously cause the entire car to lift up nearly 6 inches upon hard starts from standstill.  Owners of these cars used this effect to show off their mighty rocket propelled cars.

    Thanks for all the great posts to this thread.  Very interesting reading.     

[junkyardjeff]

I had a few Olds with the Hydramatics and then got to drive a Buick with a Dynaflow and did not like it,I like the firm shifts of the Hyrdamatics.

[JWLawrence]

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. Much knowledge and experience has been shared.

 

Regarding Post #10. The Packard Ultramatic had the direct drive clutch feature from the beginning in 1950. The transmissions were modified in late 1954 to start in low and shift to high automatically; or, they could be started in high gear as had been the original design. These transmissions were called Gear Start Ultramatics. This design was improved for the 1955 and 56 V8 cars and the name for these versions was Twin Ultramatic. Even with the automatic low to high sift, these transmissions did not tolerate this very well and when coupled with the more powerful V8 engines caused early failure. JWL