What to really expect from a 1953 Dynaflow - Honest reality check.

[Treozen]

Hello folks -

 

Years ago I owned a 1955 Buick,  and loved everything about the car, except the way it drove.  It was easily the slowest, most uninspiring, yawn-worthy off-the-line performance ever experienced with a V8 and even just getting up to speed seemed to take the scenic route to 45MPH.  Best as I could tell, everything was "normal" - no noises, no shudders - nothing odd at all, except I refuse to believe anyone would have opted for that car in 1955 over say....well...anything else. I'm used to Powerglides, TH350 - that sort of thing, but I'd wanted a '55 Buick for years - but sold it after about 6 months - just wasn't the droid I was looking for.  

 

The transmission did have a leak if you tired to fill it too much, but otherwise I assumed this was the normal Dynaflow experience.  After I sold it, I received some feedback that, perhaps, all was not normal and maybe there was some sort of undetected issue, but it was too late to worry about it. .......fast forward to now:

 

I'm looking at a 1953 Buick Super- another car I've always loved....but...Dynaflow, and if my research is correct, perhaps not even as good as the version installed in a 1955. The transmission is reportedly fully rebuilt, but that won't mean much if Dynaflow is just a different kind of driving experience, than say a TH350 or Powerglide.   Can anyone provide a real-world reality check on what you should really expect from a Dynaflow experience? and I'm not attacking Dynaflow, I just personally didn't like it, if in fact my '55 was a good example.   If my '55 was "about right" for Dynaflow, I'll need to forget all about the '53.

 

 

[usnavystgc]

Well, I can only speak as a 56 Super owner but, I will give my 2 cents.  If you start out in "D", acceleration is very slow up to about 30 mph (it does get there but, slow).  The dyna only has one forward gear in "D" and from a stop, it is akin to a manual tranny taking off in 3rd however, if you start off in "L", takeoff is much better and I can keep up with modern cars.  I even passed a 1995 Ford Fiesta once :).

 

The way I drive my car is, take off in "L" and switch to "D" at about +-30mph or so.

Edited February 1 by usnavystgc (see edit history)

[Treozen]

21 minutes ago, usnavystgc said:

Well, I can only speak as a 56 Super owner but, I will give my 2 cents.  If you start out in "D", acceleration is very slow up to about 30 mph (it does get there but, slow).  The dyna only has one forward gear in "D" and from a stop, it is akin to a manual tranny taking off in 3rd however, if you start off in "L", takeoff is much better and I can keep up with modern cars.  I even passed a 1995 Ford Fiesta once :).

 

The way I drive my car is, take off in "L" and switch to "D" at about +-30mph or so.

That's great feedback. I never did try put it in low

[usnavystgc]

Of course if your not taking off that fast or only going up to about 20 or so, you would shift to D earlier.  I would also caution you not to exceed about 35mph in L.

Edited February 1 by usnavystgc (see edit history)

[60FlatTop]

A few years ago I did some work on Tom Pirrung's 195 Super 263 Dynaflow. The car had "sprightly" performance. It moved out so well I took one of my street rodder friends out for a demonstration. His preconceived idea of the car was totally off.

My '60 Electra has the Triple Turbine, highest developed Dynaflow. Nothing sluggish about that one. I don't use LOW.

 

"Years ago" could be anything up to 70 years of poor maintenance or poor storage. Even 20 years ago would allow 50 years of deferred or inept repairs. Lots of things from dragging brakes to stuck vanes in the converter.  I would expect something wrong to cause a car to leave memories like that. They would not have sold many against the competition when they were new.

 

Tom doesn't get his car out often enough. I may have to talk him into a check up this summer.

[Treozen]

19 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

 I would expect something wrong to cause a car to leave memories like that. They would not have sold many against the competition when they were new.

 

That was sort of my thought on my '55.  Unfortunately, this isn't a car I can personally test drive first, so I won't be able to get a feel for it.

[Fr. Buick]

I wonder if your 55 didn't have the switch-pitch working properly, where it would go from high to low stall depending on where your foot is in the gas pedal.

 

A 53 will be a bit slower than a properly running 55 because it has no switch-pitch feature.   I have driven 54s all my life, a Super and a Special, with very similar trans to the 53, and they get up and move with the traffic, though with a little more patience.

 

Beware of using the low range too much.  It was not designed for regular use like in a TH350.  I only use it on a hill, or on rare occasion to jump ahead at a light, or slow stop-and-go on the freeway, or maneuvering in a parking lot.  And when shifting up into Drive, do so with your foot off the gas.  Your torque converter will thank you.

[JohnD1956]

Expect less off line performance in a 53 vs a 55 vs a 56. Yes, Low can be used as a starter gear. If I understand the manual correctly Low has a separate band in a different ratio than drive and driven more like a PowerGlide trans.  Drive in the dynaflow is using fluid pressure in the torque converter to rotate the drive drum.  In 55 a second Stator was introduced in the torque converter which gave better off line performance. In 56 the 322 engine was changed for more horsepower turning the torque converter. So better offline performance than 55.

Then there is the engine size too. 

I believe 53 thru 55 the Super had the 264 cu-in engine, where the 53,4 and 5 Roadmaster plus all the 56's,  had 322s. 

Fromo a 56 perspective I can say that off line in Drive is fair for performance. And within 2-3 car lengths it feels just like any other car. Not sluggish and more than adequate, but I am not sure how it would do at the local dragstrip. If that is your biggest concern, best to pass on the 53. 

 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

There is, on the internet somewhere, a video of a "test" between a 1955 Super and an Oldsmobile 88 of the same year.  Surprising, for some, outcome.    I saw the video within the last couple of years.  I think.   I have not asked the right question in searching for it I guess.  Perhaps someone can?

 

  Ben

[Treozen]

Thanks for all the feedback folks.

 

I'm not looking for a hot rod or drag-strip performance. I guess I'll just need to decide if I want slow and steady, but I get the Buick shape I like, or whether I keep looking for something I'm more familiar with. I do have other classic cars, so this car doesn't need to be all-things - it can be its own thing.

[195354]

Every one is hitting the mark on performance. I am driving a 53 RM with a 322 the Dynaflow  resealed 8 months ago. I drive it every chance l get. In drive it responds well in traffic when merging on the freeway no issues. In day to day driving the experience on the road-is what l expected. This is not a race car by any means but it will leave a black mark on pavement if you work at it. In drive it willingly accelerates to the next stop light. I see your in Washington state l would think someone might have a 53 close by to show you how it works if you visit Oregon you could try out my Rm.  Not sure the weight difference between a super and a RM but it would have some impact. In my opinion the biggest issues in 53 is body roll in corners takes a bit to get used to. If you have one with power brakes they take a bit to understand. 
Steve

[Treozen]

12 minutes ago, 195354 said:

Every one is hitting the mark on performance. I am driving a 53 RM with a 322 the Dynaflow  resealed 8 months ago. I drive it every chance l get. In drive it responds well in traffic when merging on the freeway no issues. In day to day driving the experience on the road-is what l expected. This is not a race car by any means but it will leave a black mark on pavement if you work at it. In drive it willingly accelerates to the next stop light. I see your in Washington state l would think someone might have a 53 close by to show you how it works if you visit Oregon you could try out my Rm.  Not sure the weight difference between a super and a RM but it would have some impact. In my opinion the biggest issues in 53 is body roll in corners takes a bit to get used to. If you have one with power brakes they take a bit to understand. 
Steve

Thanks - appreciate the offer to test.

 

This particular car is a little more complicated than most - the engine (322), Transmission and rear end are reportedly rebuilt, but there is a twist - its sitting on an early nova subframe.  This means it has updated front suspension and power disks, but...and this is the bummer.....still has manual steering.  To look at it - you'd never guess anything was changed, even the interior is stock.  I have the obvious questions now around how that subframe was connected, how they mounted the Buick 322 to what is presumably early nova engine mounts, and of course - what combination of Nova and Buick parts came together to make the steering work. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't use the Nova steering including the column and I'd imagine power - but it looks all stock '53 Buick, at least from the column anyway. 

 

These and other related questions have given me pause - If done correctly, I don't see this is a particular concern, but lack of power steering is. My '57 chevy has manual steering and that was ok when I was 18....but....I've moved on from being 18 a few decades ago, lol.  I've asked for some more details - I think I'm comfortable with the Dynaflow - but its become the lesser of the questions I have at this point 😉

[60FlatTop]

Before you find out you have to back up twice to make a right hand turn into your driveway read the part about the distance between axles and how it relates to steering geometry.

 

http://datagenetics.com/blog/december12016/index.html

 

There are two breeds of Nova/Camaro sub-frames, forward mount box and rear mount. You are right, the Dynaflow question is the easy one.

[Treozen]

15 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Before you find out you have to back up twice to make a right hand turn into your driveway read the part about the distance between axles and how it relates to steering geometry.

 

http://datagenetics.com/blog/december12016/index.html

 

There are two breeds of Nova/Camaro sub-frames, forward mount box and rear mount. You are right, the Dynaflow question is the easy one.

There are a few updates:

 

1) I believe this is a rear-steer setup. The steering box is adjacent to the engine, where the front of the box does not extend past the motor. I'd say the exposed steering shaft from firewall to box is not more than 12 - 16 inches - though that is a guess. Rag joint is effectively right at the box, no couplings or swivel joints were used.

 

2) Through more detailed pictures, the box is clearly a Saginaw 800, and a power steering box, its just not hooked up. There are no hoses or pumps. Owner assumed it was manual. This aligns with an early Nova.

 

3) I've been in talks with someone that specializes in Power steering conversions for a few brands, Buick included. They have a bracket, custom hoses and a 2nd generation GM pump that will run off the 322 and feed the Saginaw box the right PSI. If we imagine the Saginaw box still works, power steering seems achievable.

 

4) The 322 does have the dual grove crank pulley, it does not have the dual groove water pump pulley - so I'd need to source that.  Ironically, this car had factory power steering, if the steering wheel is any guide.

 

I keep reading up on the Dynaflow. Seems in 1953 it got an upgrade, but the overwhelming majority of posts seems to suggest this transmission is great so long as you live on flat land and don't mind a slow start.  The "off the line" performance is less of an issue - but I live in Washington - its a hill, on a hill, with some more hills around here.  It doesn't seem to make sense that a car as heavy as a 1953 Super would struggle with hills, but perhaps that was true for 1953, but not now.   In today's traffic - its all stop and go up any grade, and where you can move, traffic is moving just as fast on hills as anywhere else. The opinions read to me as though the Dynaflow may have been up to the challenges of the day, but its not going to perform so well in modern circumstances against current traffic.  Course, perhaps all these folks just hate Dynaflows.

 

I like to drive my classic cars - to work (1.5 hours one-way), I don't just cruise them around or go on parades. I put them to work in modern highways and roads, in traffic, at peak hours (sometimes even in the rain...[gasp]) and between work and home I end up climbing over 700ft above sea level  - I mean, not all at once, but ...hills....in traffic.   I suppose at some point its entirely fair to understand that a 70-year old technology may not keep up with today's demands - and that doesn't make it bad, but you need to understand what it is, and isn't.   I love Buicks and I like this car, but I feel like I'm getting Dynaflow cold feet - there's no room in my garage for a local-town parade car or something where I need to apologize to the evening commuters as we trundle up the third hill in a row.

 

Edited February 4 by Treozen (see edit history)

[JohnD1956]

I think @195354 's report a few posts ago addresses your Dynaflow hill time concerns. I can only add to his report that my 56 Dynaflow and 322 had zero problems from Cody Wyoming to Bozeman Montana, to Spokane, and across WA and then back to NY.  

[Treozen]

10 hours ago, JohnD1956 said:

I think @195354 's report a few posts ago addresses your Dynaflow hill time concerns. I can only add to his report that my 56 Dynaflow and 322 had zero problems from Cody Wyoming to Bozeman Montana, to Spokane, and across WA and then back to NY.  

And therein lies the problem - I've received exactly two forms of feedback from multiple sources - but no middle ground, specifically:

 

1) Dynaflow is not a performance-oriented transmission, and could be considered "slow" off the line, but you'll have no issues keeping up with traffic, going up a hills, etc. We drive our car (insert all the places) and never had an issue. Its a great, smooth, reliable transmission and once you are used to the "no shifting" its a great experience.

 

2) Good luck getting over 60MPH, and take a running start at hills. Hills in traffic will be a nightmare because you are stopping and starting - no momentum. You can shift into low and then into drive, but that will eventually blow out a seal, and if you want to see reverse work - don't move the car until its warm and idled down.  Also - it will eventually leak transmission fluid into your rear end, assuming all the fluid doesn't just leak out somewhere else.

 

There is literally no middle ground. Its almost as though both are completely true, and the difference is in how the driver feels and personally experiences the car. Well, unfortunately for me, this car is near 2,700 miles away and getting a feel for it is not possible. My 1955 was a major let down, and it still haunts me as I consider this 1953.  I'm leaning toward passing on the car and striking Dynaflow Buicks from my list  - perhaps I should just admire them.  I'm half tempted to buy it because I could then admire it up close, lol...but that's a bit of a waste.  The 1953 Buick, Olds, Cadillac and Chevy are some of my favorite styles, and I think the Buick is the best of them stylistically.

 

Its a tough decision. I'll let you know what I end up doing. If nothing else, I appreciate the help from the Buick community- not all brands are as helpful (looking at you Jaguar).

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Treozen,  everyone has opinions. Almost everyone can, and WILL, tell you how bad a friends second cousin disliked his [   insert whatever ].   Facts are facts.  I had Dynaflows when a teenager.  Notice PLURAL!  If they were as bad as some ,  who probably never owned one, say do you think I would have had even the second one?  Even when they were around a lot, it was known the engine output was a factor.   A poor running engine made the Dynaflow  "draggy" sometime.

 

  I hear you being skeptical. Perhaps you SHOULD pass.  I certainly would not let a Dynaflow stop me.

 

  Ben

[Aaron65]

I don't think the Dynaflow would bother me as much as the subframe. Who knows how well it was installed; you'd probably be in for more problems as a result of that than you would be in regards to the transmission. There are enough stock '53 Buicks for sale out there that I would hold out for one that hasn't been modified (unless that's what you want). 

 

With that being said, there's no way you'll be happy with this car if you expect it to have modern performance. I regularly drive slow cars in traffic (Corvair, slant six Dart, '53 Buick with a straight eight and Dynaflow), but I live in a middle-sized Midwestern town with no hills. My Special keeps up OK with the Dynaflow (that has less power than the Super), but there's no doubt I'm using more pedal than I would have back in 1953. People in traffic see you as a rolling chicane these days if you're even driving the speed limit, so you'll be pushing the car harder than you might want to if you're using it as a regular commuter. And of course your mileage will suffer as a result if that matters to you.

 

So, as many have said, a '53 Super is certainly capable of being a daily driver, but there are some drawbacks to doing so. The fact that you have experience in a Dynaflow car and are this unsure if you want to repeat it seems to answer your question for you (IMO). Maybe a good compromise would be to find a '53 that has been upgraded to a later Buick powertrain.

[XframeFX]

Many things come to mind, "DynaSlow" first. Final drive ratio 2nd. Yes, a steeper ratio will provide better response at the expense of economy. But, like any torque convertor transmission, there is more of a lock-up with the fluid flung to the outer diameter of a large torque convertor at a higher RPM than if the Nailhead is loafing along.

Everything is a trade-off from launching to maintaining cruise speed. Once in motion, cruising should not be an issue. The DynaFlow seamlessly multiplies torque while transitioning from one turbine to to next. I say "once in motion" because my 1963 DynaFlow is a definite  DUD off the line even with 3.23 ratio. Variable Pitch is not a factor because it only kicks-in at WOT which is not normal in everyday driving. I've considered hooking up the variable pitch to a cable inside so I can manually engage it.

 

Does the '53 Super have a torque tube? Later 50s BUICKs did. I ask this because it has been my intention to orphan my Twin Turbine by swapping in an ST400. If I'm doing it, I'm sure there are other shelved Twin Turbines out there. Variable pitch started in 1955 and by its final year in 1963 it was a refined transmission. Still, to swap to a more modern DynaFlow is certainly not worth the effort.

 

I easily tolerate slow launches because there are so many more pressing issues with my ride. Through all this, the 1963 DynaFlow has been a reliable champ. Normal cruising on the highway, even hills and not even a leak.

 

[Treozen]

4 hours ago, Aaron65 said:

There are enough stock '53 Buicks for sale out there that I would hold out for one that hasn't been modified (unless that's what you want)....

 

....So, as many have said, a '53 Super is certainly capable of being a daily driver, but there are some drawbacks to doing so. The fact that you have experience in a Dynaflow car and are this unsure if you want to repeat it seems to answer your question for you (IMO). Maybe a good compromise would be to find a '53 that has been upgraded to a later Buick powertrain.

Well, I would only want one with power steering and power brakes, disk preferably - so "stock" wouldn't work either. That's really why this car is such a quandary - it has much of what I'd want. I don't worry too much about the subframe - everything I've read on how these are done makes sense, and this one was subbed by a shop, not some guy with a welder and a hacksaw 😉 , and based on the videos of the work, it was done correctly.

 

I wouldn't use it as a daily, but I have a combination commute that features long country roads, some 55 MPH HWY, a few steep grades and stop and go traffic when I get into the city (and since its a 3-hour round trip, I drive through a few cities as well). Unfortunately, its never a leisurely drive at 40MPH with just me on the road - its in and out of smaller cities, through the country at 55 and up over hills headed toward Mt Rainier - so the cars I drive need to match and handle all types of terrain and modern traffic.  My '68 Cadillac, C3 Corvette, '69 Mustang (before I sold it) all did this flawlessly. I also have a '67 Tempest that will get a chance to prove its mettle this spring.

 

I do agree with you that my prior experience is weighing heavy on me. I'd love to find a '53 with open drive conversion, but based on the extent of work required - pretty rare. I also have a love for cars that doesn't want to see these classics hacked up - I'm ok with some modifications, but there comes a point where you've extracted the soul of the car, and I'm not in favor of that.

[Gene Brink]

On 2/1/2024 at 12:42 PM, Fr. Buick said:

I wonder if your 55 didn't have the switch-pitch working properly, where it would go from high to low stall depending on where your foot is in the gas pedal.

 

A 53 will be a bit slower than a properly running 55 because it has no switch-pitch feature.   I have driven 54s all my life, a Super and a Special, with very similar trans to the 53, and they get up and move with the traffic, though with a little more patience.

 

Beware of using the low range too much.  It was not designed for regular use like in a TH350.  I only use it on a hill, or on rare occasion to jump ahead at a light, or slow stop-and-go on the freeway, or maneuvering in a parking lot.  And when shifting up into Drive, do so with your foot off the gas.  Your torque converter will thank you.

Amen to everything Doug said. I learned my lesson on a '54 Super and after replacing 4 dynaflows (that did NOT like me planting my foot to the floorboard all the time - both in drive and low) I finally picked up a '55 transmission and linkage at the junkyard. Problem solved and rarely felt the need to use low any longer. It sounds to me that you will not like the performance in a '53 but if you purchase the car be patient and the dynaflow will last for years.

[Gene Brink]

On 2/1/2024 at 2:26 PM, Ben Bruce aka First Born said:

There is, on the internet somewhere, a video of a "test" between a 1955 Super and an Oldsmobile 88 of the same year.  Surprising, for some, outcome.    I saw the video within the last couple of years.  I think.   I have not asked the right question in searching for it I guess.  Perhaps someone can?

 

  Ben

No idea where the video is, Ben, but the Olds horsepower was 185 (4 barrel carb) while the Buick was 236 which certainly would help the Buick overcome the dynaflow sluggishness I'd bet.

[60FlatTop]

A long time ago a friend to me a French phrase that translated it "Making a parade of oneself". I have forgotten the wording. He was talking about my old cars and, I guess, me in general. He may have mentioned Pomp and Circumstance as well. But he knew I like special events and adventures. When I get an old car out, work on one, or even polish one it is a treat to me. I would hate to taking that "specialness" away and relegate it to daily transportation.

 

In good weather I don't drive an old car up through town for coffee every day, maybe twice a week.  I just couldn't get into taking that away from owning them. I'd drive my truck.

[Treozen]

14 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

When I get an old car out, work on one, or even polish one it is a treat to me. I would hate to taking that "specialness" away and relegate it to daily transportation.

 

In good weather I don't drive an old car up through town for coffee every day, maybe twice a week.  I just couldn't get into taking that away from owning them. I'd drive my truck.

I guess this is one of those "different strokes for different folks" things.  I understand your feeling, but to me, cars were made to be driven- used as intended, if you will. We all know cars hate to sit, and the best way to ruin a car, is to ignore it - and a quick jog around the block just isn't enough.   Now to be clear,  I don't use any of my classics as regular transportation and I'm also in Washington, so you can pretty much scratch mid October through March off the list for "likely driving days".  But when I get the chance, that commute to work is some of the best mix of roads and speeds you can find, and yes I'll choose  a car to go pick up the kids from school on the days I work from home - that sort of thing.  The specialness never goes away for me - its always a treat and honestly wish I had more time to go places in them, but I don't, so the work drive is a great 3-hour excuse.

 

And here is a question: Does Dynaflow attempt to "hold" on a hill like say a th350 automatic, or will the car roll back until you get the RPMs up? My 1955 couldn't hold itself even on my driveway incline - which is next to zero. It acted like a badly-driven manual, in terms of rolling backward until you got into the gas enough.

Edited February 6 by Treozen (see edit history)

[JohnD1956]

Its unlikely a Dynaflow will hold a hill. Tune up rpm is 550. I have bumped mine to 600 but much more results in lurching into reverse.  

[EmTee]

12 hours ago, Treozen said:

Does Dynaflow attempt to "hold" on a hill like say a th350 automatic, or will the car roll back until you get the RPMs up?

Brakes are designed for holding a car stationary on a hill; transmissions are not.  Using the accelerator pedal to hold the car on a hill is a good way to wear the clutches and overheat the fluid.

[60FlatTop]

“There are two kinds of people: Those who think they can, and those who think they can't, and they're both right.”

― Henry Ford

 

Probably applies to transmissions as well. If you don't think you will like it now you are probably right. Look for a Hydramatic.

Edited February 6 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[Treozen]

2 hours ago, EmTee said:

Brakes are designed for holding a car stationary on a hill; transmissions are not.  Using the accelerator pedal to hold the car on a hill is a good way to wear the clutches and overheat the fluid.

Yes, I am aware - but most if not all automatics since probably at least the 70's have the ability to provide temporary roll-back protection while you shift from one pedal, to the other.  In even older cars, well back tot he early 50's, some manufacturers provided a hill-hold or other brand-named system that would hold the car on a hill, if an automatic, for this exact purpose. In some cases it was via a solenoid that would automatically engage the brakes . My question was whether Buick and the Dynaflow system employed any feature like that - be it as part of the transmission operation, or other system.  It seems thats not the case.

[Treozen]

4 hours ago, JohnD1956 said:

Its unlikely a Dynaflow will hold a hill. Tune up rpm is 550. I have bumped mine to 600 but much more results in lurching into reverse.  

I've had ( and own) several other automatics that don't either - even if they probably should - but just something that came to mind.  I do recall that the '55 I had could really get down there on the idle - much lower than I could ever get any other car.

[Bloo]

1 hour ago, Treozen said:

Yes, I am aware - but most if not all automatics since probably at least the 70's have the ability to provide temporary roll-back protection while you shift from one pedal, to the other.

That started in the 70s due to the higher idle speeds (800RPM) used with emission controls. Loosening up the torque converter helps, and a little of that was done, but it reduces efficiency so much that you can't reasonably compensate that way. That's why late 70s cars went "CLANGGGGG" when you put them in gear, took off by themselves at flat intersections, etc. It was a major annoyance at the time. It still is for me. It sure wasn't about hill holding. Earlier cars for sure don't roll backwards as much or as quickly as a stick, but it doesn't take much time to go just go from brake to gas if you aren't managing a clutch, and there is some resistance to rollback. Some older automatics won't even work properly if the idle speed is too high.

 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

2 hours ago, Treozen said:

Yes, I am aware - but most if not all automatics since probably at least the 70's have the ability to provide temporary roll-back protection while you shift from one pedal, to the other.  In even older cars, well back tot he early 50's, some manufacturers provided a hill-hold or other brand-named system that would hold the car on a hill, if an automatic, for this exact purpose. In some cases it was via a solenoid that would automatically engage the brakes . My question was whether Buick and the Dynaflow system employed any feature like that - be it as part of the transmission operation, or other system.  It seems thats not the case.

 

 I have been driving since 1952, and the only "hill holder"  I ever was aware of was Studebaker standard applications.

 

  Ben

[Bloo]

Subaru did that too on stickshifts for a while in the 80s I think, thanks to some former Studebaker engineer.

[Treozen]

2 hours ago, Ben Bruce aka First Born said:

 

 I have been driving since 1952, and the only "hill holder"  I ever was aware of was Studebaker standard applications.

 

  Ben

Jaguar for most of their automatic-equipped products from I think mid 50's through the switch to the Xj6, also used a hill-hold feature - not that I've ever found one these days that works.  The earlier cars had a DG250, which I believe Studebaker used also, and later  - mid 60's if I recall, they used a BorgWarner 65.

[60FlatTop]

My wife learned how to drive on a four speed Volvo. Shortly after I met her I put her into a three speed Chevy pickup to match her Hippie image. Between her work and home there was a stoplight at grade. I saw her doing all this goofy stuff and repeatedly stalling the truck. So I showed her how to slip the clutch on a hill. She was really impressed. So much that she told the old man about this wonderful thing she learned. Both parents were off the boat from Denmark and in his very thick accent he told her knew how to do that. "Why didn't you teach me?" she asked. "It had already cost me one clutch to get you as far as I did. I wasn't risking another!" The accent was a killer.

 

Very conservative people, that clutch probably had him in misery for months. Me, being second generation Irish, would drop a clutch worth on change pulling bills out of my pocket on  a Saturday night.

 

Ain't those stereotypes grand!

[Treozen]

3 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

 

Ain't those stereotypes grand!

And being Scottish myself, I'd have probably complained about the cost of a clutch and blamed it on the English.

[JohnD1956]

Nature already gave us a hill holder for automatics. Its your left foot. If that feels unnatural, the parking brake, if it works, may suffice.  If the parking brake does not work well chances are this will fix it. 😄

[Y-JobFan]

While the Dynaflow has always had a reputation of being slow, in vintage road testing the Dynaflow actually turned in very comparable times to peers  in its class 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

3 hours ago, Y-JobFan said:

While the Dynaflow has always had a reputation of being slow, in vintage road testing the Dynaflow actually turned in very comparable times to peers  in its class 

Yes!   A lot of the bad press was "perception" I believe.

 

  Ben

[60FlatTop]

There is a story about a man who finally decided to have the engine in his mid-1950s Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud rebuilt due to its very poor performance. He had the car flat bedded to the shop he consigned and dropped it off in their parking lot not running. When it came time to push it into the bay 8 people couldn't move it. With the owner's permission the brakes were repaired and the owner was highly pleased with the concurrent "engine rebuild and its performance".

 

If you are even looking for an opportunity to use the term "exacerbated" just think of the owner who diagnosed his problem with a group of friends.

 

 

Edited February 9 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[Joseph P. Indusi]

My 1948 Buick Special had a Hill-Holder setup on it.   I disconnected it because it never really worked correctly, and I didn't have the time to fuss with it.   It supposedly only worked when the front of the car was facing uphill, but this one locked the brakes even when facing downhill.   So, I disconnected it.   I think another name for this was Anti-Rollback.   It actually prevented the brake fluid from returning back to the master cylinder to lock the brakes until the clutch was let out. 

I don't know if it was an aftermarket item or installed by Buick or a Buick dealer.

Joe, BCA 33493