Question for 1953 Chrysler or DeSoto V-8 Owner

[Jon Robinson]

I feel silly asking this question because it's something I should already know and be sure of.

The Powerflite automatic transmissio was phased in on V-8 Chryslers late in 1953, meaning most of te V-8 Chryslers, DeSotos, and Dodges in 1953 had the semi automatic transmission gearbox with Fluid Torque. Did the 1953 Fluid Torque units share oil with the engines as the Plymouth Hy-Drive torque converter did, or were the Fluid Torque unites filled separately from the engine of transmission as they had been in 1951 and '52?

I believe they had the shared-oiling system lik Hy-Drive, but I've started to question my own belif about that. Any help would be appreciated, especially if one of you has a shop manual to confirm it with.

Thanks!

JON

[Guest imported_Bill-W]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I feel silly asking this question because it's something I should already know and be sure of.

The Powerflite automatic transmissio was phased in on V-8 Chryslers late in 1953, meaning most of te V-8 Chryslers, DeSotos, and Dodges in 1953 had the semi automatic transmission gearbox with Fluid Torque. Did the 1953 Fluid Torque units share oil with the engines as the Plymouth Hy-Drive torque converter did, or were the Fluid Torque unites filled separately from the engine of transmission as they had been in 1951 and '52?

I believe they had the shared-oiling system lik Hy-Drive, but I've started to question my own belif about that. Any help would be appreciated, especially if one of you has a shop manual to confirm it with.

Thanks!

JON </div></div>

Fluid Torque Drive was first introduced on the 1951 Chrysler V8 models. It was a torque converter with an oil pump located just behind the converter. For 1952, DeSoto introduced Fluid Torque Drive on its FireDome V8 models with the pump in the same location.

For 1953 Chrysler offered Fluid Torque Drive on all models with the Windsor being the only series with the 4-speed Fluid-Matic semi-automatic as optional. Around May or June, 1953, Powerflite was introduced on the Imperial models.

DeSoto for 1953 modified its version of Fluid Torque Drive to share the oil (and pump) with the engine. The engine was thus modified with an oil feed line to the rear of the engine where it mated with a similar line in the bellhousing which lead to the rear of the torque converter. Similarly, a return line was plumbed from the torque converter back to the engine and then to the sump.

And Dodge offered Fluid Torque Drive on its 1953 Coronet V8 models, again with the engine and converter sharing oil. When you think about it, that was an awful lot of plumbing just to save on the cost of one pump.

And, of course, in mid-1953 Plymouth introduced Hy-Drive, a torque converter that again shared its oil with the engine.

To compare 1953 prices, by the way -

Fluid Drive with the semi-automatic - $121.25

Fluid Torque Drive with the semi-automatic - $220.00

Hy-Drive with manual transmission - $146.00

Compare that with the $175.00 Powerflite cost in 1954.

Really have to wonder why Chrysler even bothered with the semi-automatic and the Fluid Drive varieties.

Bill

Vancouver, BC

[Jon Robinson]

Thanks, Bill. That was exactly what I knew to be the case, but I had begun to doubt if I had the details right. I'm working on a project right now in which accuracy is important.

One of the things that threw me was that I know the hy-Drive system a lot better because I have original dealership service department manuals on Hy-Drive that are illustrated beautifully and clearly. As I studied this Hy-Drive illustrations and photographs, they keep showing the elaborate adapter plate that went between the engine and the bell housing. This adapter plate was so elaborate that it forced the car to have a different firewall and floorboard than an ordinary Plymouth, meaning that if a Plymouth owner was dissatisfied with Hy-Drive, he couldn't even install a manual transmission becasue, truly, the Plymouths with and without Hy-Drive were DIFFERENT CARS.

I've never heard that this was the case with V-8/Fluid Torque Chryslers, DeSotos, and Dodges in 1953, and I began to doubt my understanding, but I think I know the answer. The big adapter plate on the Hy-Drive Plymouths was probably forced by the fact that the shared-oiling Fluid Torque bell housing was designed to match up to the back of the V-8, and to match it up to the Plymouth six required this adapter plate.

A lot of people wonder why the Fluid Torque cars shared oil with the engine, but I think I know the answer. If my hypothesis is wrong, please tell me your thoughts. The liquid in the torque converter operates much more efficiently under pressure. If it's under pressure, it would behive more like a gel than a liquid, and it would transfer the energy better, especially during the "slipping" phase of acceleration when a torque converter is actually doing its job.

Thanks again, Bill.

JON

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Thanks Bill,

From what I could get out of Chilton's and MoToR's manuals of the early '50s, I was under the impression that only the sixes shared engine-oil with the Torque Convertor, and that the V-8s had the divorced sump/pump.

It's a murky subject from '49 thru '54....so many driveline options - so many "manufacturer's monnikers"...

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Jon Robinson]

Hi, Frank:

I think the only sixes to ever have the shared-oiling syste were the Hy-Drive Plymouths. I know what cars had it, now that Bill has cleared up a doubt I had developed.

The V-8 Chryslers and DeSotos in 1951 and '52 had Fluid Torque, but the torque converter was filled separately from the engine. The 1953 V-8 Chryslers, DeSotos, and Dodges had the shared-oiling Fluid Torque, as did the Hy-Drive Plymouth.

As I said, I think the only thing that made the Plymouths more complicated than the big cars was that adapter plate which made the Fluid Torque built for a V-8 fit the six-cylinder Plymouth.

I've never heard of a six-cylinder Chrysler or DeSoto using the shared-oiling system, and being that the adapter plate was such a complication on the Plymouths, I'm sure we would have heard about it.

A former DeSoto-Plymouth dealer's son, who is old enough to remember them, told me the Hy-Drive made a lot of noise and didn't move the car very well. On the other hand, a friend of mine who's father bought one of these cars new told me that at least the busy engine on the Plymouth "seemed related to the car actually moving forward, whereas, on a Chevrolet with the non-shifting Powerglide or a Buick with Dynaflow, there was a lot of commotion in the engine compartment that wasn't moving the car at all."

JON

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Jon,

There's a guy who's on the AACA Forum with a '53 Windsor Deluxe with Fluid-Torque and engine-fed convertor...I think his name is Tom ?

He's had some challenges trying to resolve oil leaks related to the Fluid Torque, and there's been very few folks that have been able to provide any info for him...

That's the only Chrysler app. I've heard of...

I always figured the eights stayed with the divorced sump because the engineers didn't want to chance a shared oiling system causing problems with their fancy new V-8...but that's mere conjecture on my part...

I haven't heard anybody say good things about Hy-Drive, except that it employs a 3-sp OD tranny, as opposed to the M-6.

Fluid Torque was a step in the right direction...actually getting torque-mult out of the Fluid Drive, but having to take your foot off the gas and "wait for the klunk" still must have really compromised any street performance of the early Hemis...

[Jon Robinson]

The Hy-Drive was, indeed, a three-speed manual transmission with the Fluid Torque torque converter on the front. Ideally, you were suppsed to leave it in Third gear and do all your driving in Third with the torque converter doing all the ratio changes, so it would drive something like a Dynaflow or early Powerglide. It had a shift selector on the top of the steering column, and if you put the gearshift in Third, the needle pointed to "Drive." Of course, it also pointed to Drive if you put the gearshift in First. "Reverse" was to the left, and "Neutral" was in the middle. It's kind of a pretty selector with gold lettering for the positions and the "Hy-Drive" name.

If you get the chance to drive a 1951 or '52 New Yorker with the hemi V-8 and Fluid Torque, you'll be impressed. They grab and go pretty dog-gone well. They were winning NASCAR races. A friend of mine in Oregon has a beautiful '51 New Yorker club coupe, and I enjoyed driving the hell out of it, including driving it on some mountain roads in the Cascade Range. They get up and move well, and the engine and transmission feel very well connected. Yes, you have to let off for the shift, but the higher-compression V-8 slows down more quickly than our sixes or your straight-eight and the shift happens a little more quickly, I think.

The six-cylinder cars wit Fluid Drive feel pretty smooth, but I would say the V-8 Fluid Torque New Yorker was noticably smoother, but I don't know how much of that is the engine and how much is the torque converter. Frank, you'll know what I mean when I say that Fluid Drive has that heavy feeling that holds the engine down to the speed of the car, and there's a feeling that it might actually be impeding things, like it's gumming up the works a little. Fluid Torque doesn't have that feeling, and the engine feels like it's not impeded at all. Fluid Torque lets the engine run a little more freely even though it feels connected. That's the best way I can describe the feeling.

Here's what I wonder about: What would my six-cylinder DeSoto be like with Fluid Torque instead of Fluid Drive?

I wonder if Plymouth would have been better with the shifting M-6 gearbox behind the Hy-Drive system instead of leaving it in its top gear.

JON

[Guest De Soto Frank]

If Chryco hadn't have come along with Powerflite for '54, we might have found out Jon !

I've seen a few '51-'52 Chryslers for sale over the last few years, and I must admit that I've been tempted...

I did have a '63 Buick Wildcat with Twin-Turbine Dynaflow...that was a neat ride...couldn't beat that tranny for smoothness...

I think you have a good point about the Hemis winding-down more quickly for the up-shift...a combination of their shorter stroke and higher compression...

I think you'd experience much quicker getaway with Fluid-Torque and your six...

The whole Fluid -Drive thing is neat, but I can't say that I miss it from a daily-driver/modern traffic standpoint...not that my straight-stick "dry-clutch" '41 De Soto was/is any barn-burner ! (Just less stuff to fuss with...)

Guess I'll have to put a '51-'52 NYer on my shopping list !

<img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Jon Robinson]

The Powerflite really was the answer to all of this. I've owned a couple of Powerflites and driven many, and I really like them. They still weren't what Chrysler needed to compete with GM four-speed Hydramatic, but it was sure a step i the right direction. I was just reading up on the Dual-Coupling Hydramatic in a '59 Cadillac shop manual I have, and as convenient and nice to drive as the Hydramatics are from behid the wheel, and diagrams and desciptions of its operation will scare you right back to the siplicity of a Powerflite.

I've driven several versions of the Dynaflow, too, and you're right, the Twin-Turbine Dynaflow from '54 on was pretty good. I like them. The ones before than don't seem very connected. The engine spins like hell, but the car doesn't move. Fluid Drive feels a lot more connected than an early Dynaflow.

Have you read up on, or even gotten to drive, a Triple-Turbine Flight Pitch Dynaflow? A smaller version of it became the Chevrolet Turboglide. They were a lot of trouble, but when they were working right, I guess then were pretty interesting. Still, from that era, give me the Torqueflite.

A fresh engine might surprise you in your DeSoto. Every time I've rebuilt an engine, I've been stunned at the difference real compression makes.

I mention driving my friends '51 New Yorker club coupe up in Oregon. Back in 1994, I drove a car just like it all over central Wisconsin -- a dark red one. The owner and I were taking his cars from one place to another. He was driving a '54 Lincoln, and I was driving the '51 New Yorker. Suddenly, he shot off into the distance. I didn't know where we were going, so I had to keep up. The disappeared over a rise, and I went over the rise at about 70 MPH, but there was a curve right there. I almost didn't make it. I came out of the curve, and he was standing there next to the Lincold, laughing.

He asked, "Do you want to drive the Lincoln?" I said, "Sure." I was no sooner sat down in the Lincoln,a nd the Chrysler flies by me, and the chase was on again.

Later, I got back at him. I was driving his '54 Olds 98 convertible, and I outran him, but it was a bitter-sweet victory because he was driving MY DESOTO! I was happy to have beaten him, but I hated beating my own car.

Here's a photo of the red New Yorker. I took this photo on a trip to Wisconsin, and that's my DeSoto in the background. I think it was about a 6,000-mile trip by the time I got back to California.

JON

[Jon Robinson]

Woops. I don't think the attachment worked.

Let's try this again.

JON

[Guest moparman53]

i have a 49 chrysler windsor and i recently had to take off gas tank to service and clean it out when i replaced fuel pump and gas line, the fittings on the line going into the gas tank has a double flarelike appearence and is not useable due to it being all rusted ,a regular fitting will not mate up to the gas tank one without leaking ,can anyone help me on where to locate the right fitting to put on the gas line? i'm told it's a chrysler nut.

[Rusty_OToole]

I ran into this problem on a 51 Chrysler. If I recall correctly a standard brake line fitting with flared steel line will screw into the gas tank but will not seal. I used a red fibre washer to make it seal, this worked perfect. I just happened to have a washer the right size in an old carb kit. A neoprene O ring should work if you do not mash down the fitting too hard.

[Martin Pany]

Hi!

I haf an DeSoto Firedome V8 convertibe. I have a question: how funktion has this tranmistion?

[TerryB]

9 hours ago, Martin Pany said:

Hi!

I haf an DeSoto Firedome V8 convertibe. I have a question: how funktion has this tranmistion?

Martin, what year is your DeSoto?  The first V8 DeSoto was introduced in 1952.  Knowing the year will help identify the transmission you have.