Trans Fluid Change

[Paul Falabella]

While the car's jacked up I figure I'll change the tranny fluid, since I never did(though with what I have replaced from leakage it's probably mostly new!).

 I noticed Pennzoil makes a high milage tranny fluid. Anyone use it? Or stick with Dex/Merc? Additives? Necessary to drop pan?

Thanks 

[Leif Holmberg]

Necessery or not,I don`t think you will regret to drop the pan,proberly a lot of dirt if you haven`t open it up earlier.

Leif in Sweden.

[Alfa]

I agree with Leif. Drop the pan and wash it out. Also check and clean the pick up filter screen whilst you are in there. I am not sure if your car has drainage plugs on the convertor, so if not, you will not be changing all the oil, but you will get most of it.

 

Adam..

[avgwarhawk]

While the car's jacked up I figure I'll change the tranny fluid, since I never did(though with what I have replaced from leakage it's probably mostly new!).

 I noticed Pennzoil makes a high milage tranny fluid. Anyone use it? Or stick with Dex/Merc? Additives? Necessary to drop pan?

Thanks 

 

If you have been using Dex/Merc continue to do so.  

[NTX5467]

The "high mileage" atf will have some of the seal-"swell/softener" additive already in it, plus possibly a little extra detergent to help keep things a little cleaner.  Personally, I suspect the "high mileage" designation is more of a marketing issue than anything else, especially as people are keeping their cars longer and such.  The "high mileage" designation usually means "over 75K miles", from what some of the literature mentions.

 

As far as the "built-in" seal additive, I don't think there's as much in there as if you poured a bottle of the separate additive in the atf.  I also suspect that once you start using that stuff, you'll need to continue using it.  Not a big deal, but if the atf you've been using is working fine with NO unusual gasket/seal-related "leaks", then keep using what you've been using.  I strongly concur on getting the pan cleaned out!  If there's already not a magnet in the pan, there's a GM part number for one that goes in the pan.  Of course, you can always add that later, on the outside of the pan with some duct tape to help the magnet "stick" to the pan surface.

 

 

Happy Holidays!

NTX5467

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

If you have been using Dex/Merc continue to do so.  

^^^^^^What he said^^^^^

[Paul Falabella]

I kind of figured to stay away from the additives because of the need to continue usage. But since this is my first Dynaflow and with what I have read about normal leakage, I'll just continue putting a cardboard "diaper" under the car. She does "shift" smoother than a Hydramatic though and never "hunts" for gears!

[Joseph P. Indusi]

All posts above are good advice. I would add that you should drain the torque converter after you lower the pan. There are two drain plugs that are accessed when you remove the small cover at the bottom of the bell housing. Remove one and rotate engine 180 degrees and then remove the other. The ATF will drain out the bottom plug. Reinstall both plugs and the pan and screen and add about 5 quarts with engine off. Then start it up and let it idle and add the remaining fill quantity according to the shop manual. If you can, keep a spare drain plug handy just in case. There used to be a guy selling them on eBay.

Joe, BCA 33493

[PONTIAC1953]

I kind of figured to stay away from the additives because of the need to continue usage. But since this is my first Dynaflow and with what I have read about normal leakage, I'll just continue putting a cardboard "diaper" under the car. She does "shift" smoother than a Hydramatic though and never "hunts" for gears!

a properly adjusted hydra-matic in good condition, doesn't shift hard or rough, and doesn't "hunt" for gears, and is much more fuel efficent than a leaking dynaflow.

[Paul Falabella]

a properly adjusted hydra-matic in good condition, doesn't shift hard or rough, and doesn't "hunt" for gears, and is much more fuel efficent than a leaking dynaflow.

No offense to the Hydramatic. I am a big fan. Most Hydramatics I have had shift 3 to 4 times better than this Dynaflow!

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

No offense to the Hydramatic. I am a big fan. Most Hydramatics I have had shift 3 to 4 times better than this Dynaflow!

 

 Paul, the Dynaflow does not shift.

 

  Ben

[avgwarhawk]

 Paul, the Dynaflow does not shift.

 

  Ben

 

That s'plain's a lot Lucy

[Guest]

a properly adjusted hydra-matic in good condition, doesn't shift hard or rough, and doesn't "hunt" for gears, and is much more fuel efficent than a leaking dynaflow.

Dynaflows leak? I guess they must, someone said if theres no oil under mine it must be all out of oil!

[buick man]

a properly adjusted hydra-matic in good condition, doesn't shift hard or rough, and doesn't "hunt" for gears, and is much more fuel efficent than a leaking dynaflow.

… Yes well said as it indeed does not shift so a comparison to a Hydromatic is not even possible.  …. That's because the Dynaflow is really just a big fluid coupling with a torque converter with pump and variable turbine vanes controlling fluid psi and capacity, not a conventional lay shaft/gear type setup that bangs into various gear patterns at set RPM changes.  For all practical matters it really has an almost infinite turbine spin ratio capacity which in turn uses the varying fluid flow pressures to deliver the engine torque back to the wheels via the fluid pressures within.  That is why it actually never really shifts and why the Dynaflow is best while cruising on the highway then starting from a stop although it does both very well.  The Drive and Low positions do not select an individual gear cluster set but instead selects a differing pump within the transmission to provide the fluid psi for the infinite like torque ratios which ultimately drive the rear wheels.  All of this instead actually selecting a completely isolated and separate gear like in a Hydromatic, Fordomatic or a Torqueflite … as these transmissions actually shift gears thereby having a direct Metal connection from engine toque on through to the rear wheels.  With the Dynaflow on the other hand, you have a direct Fluid connection between the engine torque on through to the rear wheels. That is the paramount difference between a Dynaflow and all other types of automatic gear driven transmissions. 

[Paul Falabella]

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

[Alfa]

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

 

 

   

 

  Ben

[avgwarhawk]

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

[buick man]

I will never attempt to inject facts into a topic of shifting Dynaflows again

I will never attempt to inject facts into a topic of shifting Dynaflows again

I will never attempt to inject facts into a topic of shifting Dynaflows again

I will never attempt to inject facts into a topic of shifting Dynaflows again

I will never attempt to inject facts into a topic of shifting Dynaflows again

 

                                   

 

                                 

[SpecialEducation]

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I thought it was funny.

[NTX5467]

The one HydraMatic I was around a good bit belonged to a neighbor, whose son drove us to high school.  It was an Olds '88, 1955.  He usually parked it aimed downhill on the wrong side of the street.  When he put it in "D", it went about 1 car length and BOOM it was in 2nd gear (with the engine sounding like it was behind a manual transmission that was upshifted a little early).  Other shifts happened with no real notice.  I do remember Dennis Gage remarking (driving a '55 Cadillac from the National Parts Depot owners' collection, AND original and untouched with about 20K miles on it) that a correctly-adjusted HydraMatic, "on the factory settings" was a marvelous transmission.

 

BUT, from seeing the many cut-away views of the HydraMatic variatioins, it looks like there's a BUNCH of metal being powered by the engine (and related power absorption).  The DynaFlow might absorb more power than a PowerGlide, but probably not as much as the 4-speed Hydros.  I remember a CAR LIFE road test of a '62 Olds 88 with a HydraMatic.  Average mpg was about 12mpg.  fwiw  I highly suspect that DynaFlows newer than about '55 had many incremental improvements which aided performance and fuel efficiency.

 

That same neighbor had a '64 LeSabre that his mother sometimes took us to school in.  With the DynaFlow, it would "leave" much better than it seemed it should have.  AND . . . it was smoooooooth.

 

NTX5467

Edited December 24, 2015 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Chasander]

63 was last year for Dynaflow

chuck

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

No offense to the Hydramatic. I am a big fan. Most Hydramatics I have had shift 3 to 4 times better than this Dynaflow!

 

 

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I thought it was pretty funny !!! 

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

a properly adjusted hydra-matic in good condition, doesn't shift hard or rough, and doesn't "hunt" for gears, and is much more fuel efficent than a leaking dynaflow.

My Dynaflow doesn't leak.

And is very fuel efficient,

In fact, not once in 45 years have I put fuel in the Dynaflow.

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

The one HydraMatic I was around a good bit belonged to a neighbor, whose son drove us to high school.  It was an Olds '88, 1955.  He usually parked it aimed downhill on the wrong side of the street.  When he put it in "D", it went about 1 car length and BOOM it was in 2nd gear (with the engine sounding like it was behind a manual transmission that was upshifted a little early).  Other shifts happened with no real notice.  I do remember Dennis Gage remarking (driving a '55 Cadillac from the National Parts Depot owners' collection, AND original and untouched with about 20K miles on it) that a correctly-adjusted HydraMatic, "on the factory settings" was a marvelous transmission.

 

BUT, from seeing the many cut-away views of the HydraMatic variatioins, it looks like there's a BUNCH of metal being powered by the engine (and related power absorption).  The DynaFlow might absorb more power than a PowerGlide, but probably not as much as the 4-speed Hydros.  I remember a CAR LIFE road test of a '62 Olds 88 with a HydraMatic.  Average mpg was about 12mpg.  fwiw  I highly suspect that DynaFlows newer than about '55 had many incremental improvements which aided performance and fuel efficiency.

 

That same neighbor had a '64 LeSabre that his mother sometimes took us to school in.  With the DynaFlow, it would "leave" much better than it seemed it should have.  AND . . . it was smoooooooth.

 

NTX5467

My Hdramatic experience was much the same.

After the first shift, I was looking in the mirror to see what kind of truck had rear ended us

[60FlatTop]

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

I will never attempt to inject humor into a topic again.

Ever seen a bunch of old guys (Buick owner aged) laughing at something they thought was funny?

 

Bernie

[Fr. Buick]

You can drain the converter with only one plug taken out, it just takes a little longer, and you can clean the pan in the meantime.

[d2_willys]

… Yes well said as it indeed does not shift so a comparison to a Hydromatic is not even possible.  …. That's because the Dynaflow is really just a big fluid coupling with a torque converter with pump and variable turbine vanes controlling fluid psi and capacity, not a conventional lay shaft/gear type setup that bangs into various gear patterns at set RPM changes.  For all practical matters it really has an almost infinite turbine spin ratio capacity which in turn uses the varying fluid flow pressures to deliver the engine torque back to the wheels via the fluid pressures within.  That is why it actually never really shifts and why the Dynaflow is best while cruising on the highway then starting from a stop although it does both very well.  The Drive and Low positions do not select an individual gear cluster set but instead selects a differing pump within the transmission to provide the fluid psi for the infinite like torque ratios which ultimately drive the rear wheels.  All of this instead actually selecting a completely isolated and separate gear like in a Hydromatic, Fordomatic or a Torqueflite … as these transmissions actually shift gears thereby having a direct Metal connection from engine toque on through to the rear wheels.  With the Dynaflow on the other hand, you have a direct Fluid connection between the engine torque on through to the rear wheels. That is the paramount difference between a Dynaflow and all other types of automatic gear driven transmissions. 

The Dynaflows always had a Low range that is mechanical in nature. A low band is used to hold a planetary in reduction. Drive range is simply a disc clutch pak that engages the torque converter to the tail shaft. 48-52 Dynaflows were the worst performing of the bunch, due to no twin turbine and variable pitch. In 53, Buick added a second turbine to the torque converter. The primary turbine was geared to the direct drive clutch by a planetary gearset. It provided more starting torque. The secondary turbine was directly connected to direct drive clutch. The two turbines worked concurrently and provided a shiftless feel. In 1955, Dynaflows were equipped with a variable pitch stator in the torque converter. The stator was controlled by throttle movement. The idea was to change the angle of the stator blades to increase engine rpm and provide more torque multiplication when the the  accelerator was near or at the floor. This provided a pseudo passing gear. Pump pressures are different between R, L, and D ranges, mainly for the elements needed in each range. They did very little for the converter efficiency.

[Guest gmeyer316]

so is the dynaflow similar the new Nissan CVT transmissions? They don't shift either

[Airy Cat]

Most Dyna Flows leak. ATF is cheap.

[Airy Cat]

Most Dyna Flows leak. ATF is cheap.

[avgwarhawk]

Someone stated their dynaflow was leaking.   There was an uneasy silence......

 

 

[NTX5467]

CVTs use pulleys and a steel cable between them.  Pulleys have "slopes" upon which the cable operates, which changes the ratio between the pulleys.  The Nissan CVTs typically have 4 forward "gears" on the selector, but those are just pre-set locations on the pulleys for the cable to be.  And, of course, there is a special trans fluid for the CVTs.

 

Interesting thing is that the lower-powered Nissan engines use a CVT, but the higher-powered Infinity vehicles use "geared" transmissions.

 

Remember the vintage saying . . . "If it won't go, gear it!" ??  Either add a transmission with more gears and/or deeper rear axle ratio.

 

NTX5467

[d2_willys]

so is the dynaflow similar the new Nissan CVT transmissions? They don't shift either

similar in no noticeable shifts, but that is about it. Actually the Nissan CVT does shift out of Low gear, then is mostly CVT, and when you need to pass, flooring it shifts down. Buick used the torque converter to do the variable ratios, where the Nissan uses another approach. Probably electronic in nature.

[Guest 54fins]

Cool thread! The dynaflo has some downsides but it is smooth and it is tough.

But oil quality is my life work (for power plants) so here are a few simple tips-

 

All fluids need to be changed. Engine oil most people get but tranny, diffs, radiator, brakes etc rarely get done. Servicing all the fluids every year is cheap insurance. Vintage cars use the mineral oils as synthetics can eat buna and other old seals.

 

Tranny- modern mineral based red stuff is all extremely good. Tranny fluids are highly additized for high temps. Dynaflows tend to leak and thus get a continuous oil change. Torque converters tend to catch most of the crap, as they act like a centrifugal filter. a quick oil change is about useless, open it up and drain the torque converter and drop the pan. you always want to see bright red ATF and the dynaflow will probably outlast the rest of the car. Torque converters eventually fill up with sludge if not serviced.

 

radiator- green stuff. Now you can look at the drips and tell if its motor oil (rear seal leak) radiator (green) or tranny (red). Black, red or green. if any change color, change the fluid! And don't forget the rear diff. The ATF can drip down the torque tube and ruin your diff. Change these fluids once a year and odds are (barring other issues) your car will probably outlive you. Most old Buicks sat for 20 years with old oil and will need every fluid serviced. I would say that 99% of the failures on old cars are from old fluids. Last, spend more time servicing the fluids than worrying about the brands. Todays cheap fluids are better than the best fluids in the 60's. The best fluids are worthless if they don't get serviced and it's easier to remember an annual service than try to do it based on a complex formula.