Transmission is in a 1963-64 Wildcat, good or bad?

[Guest Parm]

Would like to hear some feedback about the transmission in a 1963-64 Wildcat. I know it was not the famed Turbo Hydromatic as the first year for that in a Buick was 1965 in the larger models. In a 1963-64 Wildcat, I'm thinking it was the unit some refer to as the "Slim Jim", 2-speed Hydromatic or something like that. Spline Drive, does that sound right? Probably not.

Anyway, I sort of have my eye on one of these cars and I've heard absolute horror stories from some who have said I should run, not walk, away from any car with one of these tranmissions. These same folks have advised me to stick with 1965 and newer cars in order to get the Turbo Hydromatic transmission.

Can anyone confirm that this is a sound strategy? If so, what makes the Slim Jim transmission (or whatever it's called) so bad? I would think it'd be just as expensive to fix or rebuild one of these as it would a 1965-66 Turbo Hydromatic unit. But then, there may be more to story than that.

Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Centurion]

Parm, you've been mis-informed. Buick never used the Slim Jim transmission; that transmission was used only on full-size 1961-64 Oldsmobiles, as well as 1961-64 Pontiac Catalinas and Grand Prix's.

Buick and Cadillac were first to receive the Turbo-Hydramatic 400 transmission in 1964. Other GM lines received the transmission beginning in 1965.

So, the Wildcat automatic transmissions in 1963 and 1964 were as follows:

1963 -- Final year of Buick's Turbine Drive (Dynaflow). This was a very smooth, reliable transmission. Parts and knowledgeable mechanics are readily available (at least in my part of the country).

1964 -- First year of Buick's Super Turbine 400 (Buick's variant of the THM-400).

Hope this helps!

[Steve B]

Parm,

The 63 had a 2 speed Dynaflow (last made in 63). They are not a bad transmission, but it can be hard to find parts and a shop that is familiar with it.

The 64 had the first 3 speed Super Turbine 400. It had a different valve body then the 65-67 ST 400, and did not feature a variable pitch converter like 65-67 ST 400. There was no way to directly shift this trans into low as there were only 2 forward dedents in the transmission. It can be made to perform well in the right hands.

[Centurion]

Parm, I re-read your original question, and noted that you were looking for more information regarding the Slim Jim transmission. Here's a lengthy thread that appeared on the Oldsmobile Technical Forum regarding the Slim Jim:

http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=147303&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[Mrbuick714]

63,good,64 VERY GOOD !

[Guest Parm]

Turbine Drive! That's what I was thinking when I said "Spline Drive". Thanks.

So, for '63 the transmission was a Dynaflow? Didn't those have somewhat of a dubious reputation? I seem to recall that they were referred to as "Dyna-slush", but I think that was from Dynaflows of the 1950's and I don't even know what that "dig" was in reference to.

Perhaps by 1963, they had all the bugs worked out of it?

[The Old Guy]

By 1963 ,the Dynaflow was bullet proof! My 63 Electra will light the tires and do it so smoothly you find it hard to believe. The early units had a poor reputation, but the later ones are GREAT!!

The ST 400 in the 64 was the forerunner of the TH 400 and is also a good unit

[imported_buick5563]

I had heard the same thing about dynaflows also, and believed it, because of the lethargic performance of my 55 Special with a 264. Then I got my 63 Wildcat and realized that it was the 264 engines fault, not the dynaflow transmission. With the 55 I put a rebuilt 322 in and sealed the torque tube and now I can't say anything bad about the dynaflow. Both cars have respectable (to say the least) off the line performance and purrrr down the highway never feeling the shifts. I love 'em.

Mike

[Guest Parm]

So, you have a '63 Wildcat convertible? I think they're terrific looking cars. Not too big and not too small and with quintessential Buick lines from the mid-60's.

All the '63 Wildcat convertibles I've seen have bucket seats so I assume yours has them as well. So, I'd like to ask how comfortable are the seats. I'm rather leary about getting a car without any tilt/angle seat adjustments - which I don't think the 63-64 Wildcats have.

As an example, I used to be "ga-ga" over 1964-65 Thunderbirds, until I actually sat in the their clamshell seats. Without a doubt, these were the most uncomfortable seats I've ever experienced and it "instantly cured" me of T-Birds.

I tend to like plenty of support for my thighs and don't like a seating position that is very upright. How's the comfort level in your 63?

[imported_buick5563]

Mine were redone in white naughahyde with silver sparkle inserts (unoriginal). The seats themselves were expertly done and repadded so they are very comfortable. Even though I'm not a tall guy (5'10") It is very comfortable to drive. With my 55 the seats never seemed to go back far enough (I fixed that by moving the bracket back 2 inches on itself). I'm not familiar with the later T'birds but the Wildcat feels a bit like the bullet birds of 61-63. (If I recall).Plenty of back tilt for me , at least. Obviously the seats only move front to back but I don't know if you have tried to figure out a comfortable seating configuration in a 6 way power seat from Ford or GM. It sho' ain't easy. You kinda get used to it instead of continually jacking around trying to find a more comfortable position. About the not too big/not too small, when I bought it it was a mid 70's dodge blue that made it look really long. When I got it repainted to a burgundy, it mid-sized the look of the 17' car. I like it better now 'cuz it doesnt seem/ look so long. I was actually looking for a '61 Tbird when I bought this car, but I figured then I would have to join another club and make new geeky friends after I just got used to these geeky friends, so I opted for a Buick( that needed a whole lot more work).Talk to ya later.

Mike