1949 Dynaflow from Roadmaster compatible with 1949 Super?

[Model56s]

Can a dynaflow taken from a 49 Roadmaster (320 cid) be installed in a Super (248 cid) that was equipped with a dynaflow? I am concerned that there were different bell housing bolt patterns and other unique features between the 320 and 248 that would prevent the swap.

Thanks,

[Dan O]

I have some info for you from a reply to my questiont regarding YOM on a 320 motor and Dynaflo from 1953Mack that probably helps:

 

"FWIW:

~  The 1948-1952 Buick Roadmaster (70 Series) Dynaflow bell housings have the same part number.

~  The 1949 Super (50 Series) and all 1950-1952 Special (40 Series) and Super (50 Series) Dynaflow bell housings have a different part number than the Roadmaster Series for the years mentioned above."

 

So, for what it's worth - you might want to look at my thread and read the reply I got from 1953Mack. 

[1953mack]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 6:09 PM, Model56s said:

Can a dynaflow taken from a 49 Roadmaster (320 cid) be installed in a Super (248 cid) that was equipped with a dynaflow? I am concerned that there were different bell housing bolt patterns and other unique features between the 320 and 248 that would prevent the swap.

Thanks,

 

Other unique features besides the different bell housings noted above include:

~ the diameter dimension of the torque converters are different between the 1949 Code "C" Roadmaster Dynaflow transmission than the 1949 Code "B" Super Dynaflow transmission . . . along with internal differences/part numbers for primary & secondary pumps, primary & secondary stators, pump cover, etc. 

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

[Don Tomaso]

And the Roadmaster dynaflow total oil capacity are 10 quarts, the super dynaflow are 8,5 quarts.

[Model56s]

Thanks gentlemen, you saved me some $$.

[Leif Holmberg]