lots of questions!!!

[pierpaolo]

Here are some (maybe silly...) question, if someone could help to satisfy my curiosity......

I would like to know in which years the lockup and the overdrive were firstly introduced on chrysler automatic transmissions.

Is there any real difference in fuel consumption between late 50's 2 gears auto (powerflite), 3 gears auto (torqueflite) and manual transmission? According to my knowledge, in theory the manual should be better at constant speed, while the auto is slighty better in urban cicle, is this true and is the difference noticeable?

What's different in drive feeling between a 2 and 3 speed auto box?

I've found a 1955 Chrisler Windsor T&C Station Wagon in very good condition: no need of work on body or mechanics, interiors restored to original, brakes and trasmission overhauled few years ago, just few little rust spots on the roof, it has power steering and brakes, 2 speed auto.

How much is it worth?

Can anybody give some information about this model?

Many thanks, Pie

[Jon Robinson]

Pie:

There are no silly questions. All questions are intelligent.

I can't tell you the exact years, but I can generalize that the locking rear ends appeard in Chrysler products in the early-1960s, and the automatic overdrives appeared in the 1970s.

I can tell you a lot about the 1955 Chrysler Windsor, though. They are very, very good cars. I've been a heavy driver of old cars for over 20 years, and I would say the truth of fuel consumption is the reverse of what you're currently thinking. Out on the highway, there's very little, if any, difference in fuel economy between old cars with manual or automatic transmissions, but in city traffic, the manuals will certainly be a little easier on gas because just the pumps in an automatic take several horsepower to operate, and I remember hearing that the torque converter takes seven or eight horsepower just to operate without even moving the car.

In the '60s, Chrysler didn't have automatic overdrives on their automatic transmissions, but they had very good rear axle ratios that lowered the RPM nicely once the transmission was in Third gear. Many '60s Chrysler products with big engines had 2.91 and 2.73 rear ends which basically did the same RPM reduction that an overdrive does.

Yes, the three-speed Torqueflite automatics are better, but the two-speed Powerflites drive so well that there's no reason to condemn them or change them. The only disadvantage to the two-speed transmision is that if you push down on the gas pedal hard enough for it to downshift, it downshifts into its First gear which is too low if you're moving pretty fast, such as being most of the way through acclerlating onto a freeway on-ramp. The three-speed transmissions have a Second gear that isn't so low for a downshift at a reasonably higher speed.

The '55 Windsor is a great car! I had a red sedan for quite a while back in the 1980s. Their engines are only 301 cubic-inches, and they have plenty of power while still being pretty ecnomical on gas for such big cars. They came with 3.54 and 3.73 rear ends, which are rather low-geared and will cause high RPM, but the good news is that much better-geared rear ends from the late-'50s and early-'60s can be installed into the '55 Chrysler with nearly no modifications. They're the same rear ends with just a different number of teeth on the gears, and this change does not alter the structure or historical accuracy of the car. It will feel like you rebuilt the whole car, and with such a reasonably sized engine, it should really do well on gas for its size with lower RPM.

The power steering on these cars can be rather ghostly and feel like the steering wheel is not connected to anything, but radial tires are a huge improvement. The power brake booster sits right on top of the master cylinder, and filling the master cylinder can be a bit of a trick. These cars are very quiet and they ride really nicely, and they're very comfortable for long trips. Your station wagon would be a great traveling car. They're nice looking cars, and I always enjoyed looking at the dash board in mine.

I don't know what they're worth, but they're definitely worthwhile cars.

JON

[NTX5467]

TorqueFlites with a lockup torque converter appeared in about 1978 year model vehicles. Chrysler documentation indicated a 3 per cent increase in highway fuel economy with the lockup converter over a non-lockup converter. The first couple of years of lockups would lockup just after the car hit about 27mph or basically just after it would shift into direct from second. In later years, like my '80 Newport, the lockup point was delayed until more like 47mph or a little higher. The converter would unlock when any downshift out of high gear took place.

Although most of the development work on the lockup TorqueFlites was done on drag race vehicles, any application which could be classed "heavy duty" in passenger car (i.e., police use or trailer package vehicles) or light trucks were non-lockup transmissions only.

The passenger car overdrive TorqueFlites were based on the A904/998/999 transmissions architecture and electrically operated (the overdrive function). These transmissions didn't appear until the later '80s and in the light trucks (as those were the only rear wheel drive vehicles Chrysler built then). These were also behind the small block 318s and 360s as Chrysler was out of the big block V-8 business at that time.

The last versions of the Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue/Dodge Diplomat cars still used the 3-speed lockup converter TorqueFlites. To aid fuel economy, their rear axle ratios were about 2.2 to 1, or basically the same as a 3.00 rear axle with .70 overdrive applied to it.

The main reason the automatic OD trans came into vogue was that it allowed for deeper rear axle ratios for better accleration but with reduced cruise rpm compared to a non-OD trans. GM's orientation was to use a 3.06 low gear ratio with a rear axle ratio that would put cruise rpm in the 1600 rpm range whereas Ford used the normal 3-speed transmission ratios with a 3.55 or so rear axle ratio.

As for driving "feel" with a PowerFlite 2-speed versus a TorqueFlite 3-speed, it's all kind of relative. The PF has a low gear ratio of about 1.76 to one. This works pretty well with a middle 3.00 range rear axle ratio, but will have a full throttle upshift of about 55mph. Additionally, low speed acceleration can suffer due to the lesser amount of mechanical power multiplication and the fact that high gear at WOT happens sooner. Hence the need for the deeper rear axle ratios for acceptable performance. The engines typically were still below the 300 cubic inch size so fuel economy was still pretty good.

The up side is that a PF will typically take less power to run, even with the dual pumps. This can mean a little more horsepower can make it to the rear wheels. An engine with a broad torque curve can handle a 2-speed trans pretty well in normal driving.

With the TorqueFlite, which is one of the most efficient transmissions ever designed, the low gear is 2.45 to 1 with 2nd being 1.45 to 1 and 3rd being direct. The first TFs were basically behind the bigger and more powerful motors. The different gearing really made a difference in tire spinning performance and the higher ratio for 2nd let them wind out to over 75mph before hitting high gear. For a given rate of acceleration, they didn't take quite so much throttle input so the carb stayed out of the mixture enrichment phase during acceleration.

As things evolved, bigger engines with greater torque with bigger cars ended up with the normal cars having 2.76 or 2.93 rear axle ratios for better high speed cruising (as on the new network of Interstate Highways) and cruise rpm would be about 2500 rpm at legal speeds. The performance 4bbl cars usually had 3.23 rear axle ratios. End result, the cars performed better and got better fuel economy in the mix too.

Of course, all of the extra mechanism in the TF will take a little more power to run, but I've documented only about a 16 per cent power absorption between the flywheel and rear wheels in a late 1960s Chrysler A727 TorqueFlite equipped vehicle.

When the compacts came out in 1960, there was a lighter duty version of the TorqueFlite for them. That's where the A904 was born. The larger TorqueFlite was the A727. Many drag racers soon found out that they could beef up the A904 with heavier duty clutches and bands and they could replace their A727s with them for increased performance in their small block Chrysler V-8 racers. The 904 took a little less power to run than the 727 did so it was worth a few tenths of a second in the quarter mile drags.

Either way, Chrysler had some of the best automotics ever to grace this planet. They typically had higher efficiency torque converters than Ford or GM too, for that tight throttle response they were famous for.

I always liked the mid-1950s Chryslers. I was a faithful watcher of the Sky King television shows that used those '55 or so Chrysler products exclusively. I recall one show where a "damsel in distress" was driving a '56 Belvedere convertible that had been rigged with dynomite. Sky King got her out of it just before the timer went off and it blew up. Good thing it was out in the desert. We had a '56 Plymouth Savoy sedan and my uncle had a '55 Belvedere sedan. Those were really neat cars!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[pierpaolo]

Hi there!

Few days ago I became the proud owner of a beautiful 1955 chrysler windor town & country (salmon pink!). Thanks JON and NTX5467 for your precious and detailed information, you are partly responsible for my decision to buy the car!

I would like to improve the state of the car, so you will soon find new posts requiring suggestion or parts (actually, two are already out.......).

See you soon,

Pierpaolo