Guest Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) G Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beemon Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Greg, you've given me many ideas. I have a spare 56 Dynaflow but no 57 bellhousing... would be interesting to see if something comes from it. The 50s Dynaflows were said to have unlimited torque characteristics due to the fluid coupling. Maybe put it to the test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-tank Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 You should try it... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 (edited) A Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 ("Unlimited torque characteristics"???) Unlimited torque multiplication possibilities, within a range. Kind of like a "cvt in a circle"? The switch-pitch torque converter goes from about 2.6 down to 1.0, whereas most other torque converters of the time were 2.2 or 2.0 down to 1.0 As your buddy has a J-2 Olds in his "fleet" (or access to it), why not see what the difference in the rear frames are between it and your Buick? IF the olds rear leaf springs will or can attach to the Buick frame, for example? IF that's easily possible, then changing to an open driveshaft AND a modern automatic (with MORE gears) would be easier to do. Y'all start hoarding those THM400s from the '65 Wildcats! NTX5467 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beemon Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 But Willis, if you remove the rear coils, you loose that famous Buick ride! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Bruce aka First Born Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 9 hours ago, Beemon said: But Willis, if you remove the rear coils, you loose that famous Buick ride! I agree! Almost as bad as a chevy engine. IF I were doing an open drivre shaft, I would use some kind of torque bars and keep the coils in the same mount. Probably STILL lose some of the ride/handling. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) In earlier threads about GM frames and how each carline's frames were different or very similar, especially in the rear section, plus the similarities of Olds frames to Buick frames, in those later-'50s times, the possibility of changing Buick torque tube to an Olds open driveshaft/leaf springs came to my mind. A possible different way to get an open driveshaft rather than an expensive aftermarket (race-inspired) set-up that costs much more money. The other alternative would be to adapt the torque bar from a Gen III Camaro (also with the THM200-4R transmission, and its related rear housing architecture to accept the torque rod), or design a new rear housing for the DynaFlow to accept such things. With such a leaf spring set-up, it would provide a possibly less-expensive architecture upon which to fit an aftermarket rear axle, rather than a pure custom-built housing per se. End result might be that the rear axle companies "build to specs" anyway, whatever the specs might be. I'm aware of the frictional issues of coil springs vs leaf springs, of which the coil springs have none. But I also submit that much of "the ride" is more about spring rates AND shock absorber valving actions. Perhaps y'all might be more comfortable with using something as a mid-'60s Buick rear suspension (depending upon the rear track width and frame width/configuration in that rear section? Beemon the fabricator and salvage yard scout? Enjoyy! NTX5467 Edited September 23, 2017 by NTX5467 (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) www.yariscustoms.com/1956-cadillac for the rear air bag installation on a '56 Cadillac. Note the "lateral bar" in the rear suspension picture. The engineering of that whole deal appears to be "simplistic", to me. Looks good, but how does it do "on the road", with bumps an dips and CORNERS? What about daptation of later model Buicks or GM cars' rear suspensions to the '56 chassis? Keeping the coil springs in the process. Where the basic designs and engineering were done OEM rather than otherwise. NTX5467 Edited September 23, 2017 by NTX5467 (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) On 9/22/2017 at 7:00 PM, NTX5467 said: ("Unlimited torque characteristics"???) Unlimited torque multiplication possibilities, within a range. Kind of like a "cvt in a circle"? The switch-pitch torque converter goes from about 2.6 down to 1.0, whereas most other torque converters of the time were 2.2 or 2.0 down to 1.0 As your buddy has a J-2 Olds in his "fleet" (or access to it), why not see what the difference in the rear frames are between it and your Buick? IF the olds rear leaf springs will or can attach to the Buick frame, for example? IF that's easily possible, then changing to an open driveshaft AND a modern automatic (with MORE gears) would be easier to do. Y'all start hoarding those THM400s from the '65 Wildcats! NTX5467 A Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttotired Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 I think you meant this one https://yarilscustoms.com/1956-cadillac/ That lateral bar just looks wrong to me, also note the large notches out of the chassis and the rather ugly alteration to the trans tunnel. All necessary if you want it in the weeds (I do like the look) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Correct on the website. typo . . . Now, that Caddy is ready for the continental kit on the back, with a hidden 3-blade mower deck for Texas-sized lawns . . . A '58 Buick Limited Riviera would work, too! NTX5467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) On 9/23/2017 at 6:58 PM, NTX5467 said: Correct on the website. typo . . . Now, that Caddy is ready for the continental kit on the back, with a hidden 3-blade mower deck for Texas-sized lawns . . . A '58 Buick Limited Riviera would work, too! NTX5467 P Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) On 6/22/2017 at 3:09 PM, old-tank said: You should try it... Yes Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTX5467 Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 My apologies for continuing the swapping of DF parts as I did. My orientations were more toward swapping "open driveshaft" items in the place of "closed driveshaft" items. Might not be the end of the trans you were interested in, though. NTX5467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beemon Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 Greg, did you ever find out if the 57 and 56 Dynaflow are the same size from bellhousing to tailshaft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60FlatTop Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 If you convert to an open driveshaft you won't be able to put the car in low and raise it vertically 5 or 6" by power braking. NOW, where is the phun in not being able to intimidate some 1.8 liter whatever with that little trick? "Dear, keep looking straight ahead. But that old man next to us in the Buick is doing something real strange with his car. It is going up!" Bernie 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old-tank Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 1 hour ago, 60FlatTop said: If you convert to an open driveshaft you won't be able to put the car in low and raise it vertically 5 or 6" by power braking. NOW, where is the phun in not being able to intimidate some 1.8 liter whatever with that little trick? "Dear, keep looking straight ahead. But that old man next to us in the Buick is doing something real strange with his car. It is going up!" Bernie Video demonstration please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2017 Share Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) On 10/14/2017 at 1:09 AM, Beemon said: Greg, did you ever find out if the 57 and 56 Dynaflow are the same size from bellhousing to tailshaft? M Edited December 10, 2017 by Guest (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now