 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2005Chrysler Fluid Drive
My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art by the other car makers? I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use today... Professor www.telstar-electronics.com > I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when > then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use > today... Again you answer questions to which you don't know the answer. "Fluid drive" refers to a very specific transmission setup that does *not* involve a torque converter. As I said... "I believe"... I'm not always right like you are Dan... LOL Professor www.telstar-electronics.com > > I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when > > then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drive" refers to a very specific transmission setup that does *not* > involve a torque converter. > As I said... "I believe"... I'm not always right like you are Dan... It's not that I'm always right. it's that I know to keep my mouth shut when I don't know the answer to a question. > It's not that I'm always right. it's that I know to keep my mouth shut > when I don't know the answer to a question. You expect us to read that and not bust up laughing????!!!!! OOOOOOkay....... >> It's not that I'm always right. it's that I know to keep my mouth shut >> when I don't know the answer to a question. > >You expect us to read that and not bust up laughing????!!!!! >OOOOOOkay....... Does r-13 sound familiar.... >>> It's not that I'm always right. it's that I know to keep my mouth shut >>> when I don't know the answer to a question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does r-13 sound familiar.... Bwahahahahahaha!!! Tit for tat. "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote >> It's not that I'm always right. it's that I know to keep my mouth shut >> when I don't know the answer to a question. > Does r-13 sound familiar.... Sure does. Some idiot wrote in that he couldn't find anyone to charge his A/C with R13, which he knew he needed because there was "R13" lettering somewhere on his dashboard. I, amongst many others, pointed out that there is no such thing as R13. My great, stinking, fetid, rotten, filthy failure was in crediting the general readership of rec.autos.tech with enough brain cells to think contextually. Yep, that's right: I -- along with many others -- didn't explicitly say there's no such thing as R13 **IN AUTOMOBILES**. Some other idiot named Ashton then jumped up and down and peed himself about it. Your point...? > "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Your point...? So, what you're saying is that you knew all along that there was such a thing as R-13 but you "assumed" that everyone would understand the automotive-only context of the following statement: "There is no such thing as R13."? I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret "There is no such thing as R13" as "R-13 is not used in automobiles". Soiunds more like your inflated ego prevents you from admitting a mistake. >> "Ashton Crusher" <Hello@nowhere.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Soiunds more like your inflated ego prevents you from admitting a mistake. You hit the (dan)nail on the head. I did some further research on Google concerning the Hudson auto.Joseph Hudson of the Hudson Dept.store was a co-founder in 1909 and in the late 20's Hudson followed Ford and Chevy in sales volume.Even the history of the store itself was interesting.I live in the east and heard of the store but not its background. > I did some further research on Google concerning the Hudson auto.Joseph > Hudson of the Hudson Dept.store was a co-founder in 1909 and in the late > 20's Hudson followed Ford and Chevy in sales volume.Even the history of > the store itself was interesting.I live in the east and heard of the > store but not its background. Yes, and they produced some fine cars (Hudson-Essex-Terraplane) in their heyday. But as the industry consolidated into three big companies it became impossible for Hudson to compete. The big guys were rolling out new iron every year and independents like Hudson couldn't remake the production line that frequently. It's too bad, because smaller companies like Hudson seemed to be as technically innovative as the big guys. (My Hornet was a pleasure to drive.) Hudson unfortunately merged with the smallest of the three, Nash-Kelvinator which went on to become AMC after acquiring some other lower tier auto companies. Well Dan... I can afford to make a stab at a reply... with you around to always correct me... LOL Professor www.telstar-electronics.com From doing some more reading on the subject apparently they did have a model with a torque converter.I am 60 years old now and remember we had a '41Plymouth then a '51Dodge.The last car my father bought was a '60 Chevy Impala with 3 speed manual.What I really remember was almost getting killed when he got the Chevy.He was so used to the Fluid Drive and breaking into traffic,the Chevy was not so forgiving.It was like a person first learning to drive a stick.During the forties and fifties wasn't Chrysler outselling Ford to earn the second place spot behind GM?I saw this on one page and not too sure.I know my father liked Chrysler products because of their engineering.If they had it when did they lose it!! > From doing some more reading on the subject apparently they did have a > model with a torque converter.I am 60 years old now and remember we had [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Chrysler products because of their engineering.If they had it when did > they lose it!! Chrysler never did actually catch Ford in the 40's or 50's but certainly anrrowed the gap. As for Fluid drive. I had a friend with any early 50's Dodge. It was sort of weird. It was like having a manual, except you could leave it in gear when you stopped. He said it had a fluid clutch, which I thought was a sort of torque convertor, but maybe not. I mostly remember the car as incredibly slow, but then when I rode in it, it was more than 15 years old. I did find an interesting reference on line. See - http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/012A/cover.htm Ed But doesn't it use a fluid clutch? Ed But doesn't it use a fluid clutch? Ed > But doesn't it use a fluid clutch? Tain't no sech thing. Chrysler used a fluid coupling in combination with a pedal operated mechanical clutch assembly. It was literally impossible to stall those engines. > I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when > then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use > today... AFAIK the first transmission to use a torque converter was the Chevy Powerglide followed by Fordomatic and my all-time favorite Buick Dynaflow and a whole bunch of others including the Chrysler trans. The semi-automatic transmissions from Chrysler used a fluid coupling along with a clutch. > > I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when > > then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > semi-automatic transmissions from Chrysler used a fluid coupling along > with a clutch. I am pretty sure that both Buick and Packard used transmissions with torque convertors before Chevy or Ford even offered automatics. Ed > > > I beleive they are referring to a fluid-filled torque converter when > > > then talk about fluid drive. This principle is still very much in use [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I am pretty sure that both Buick and Packard used transmissions with torque > convertors before Chevy or Ford even offered automatics. Yes, you are correct. I confused my dates, which should be Buick 1948, Packard 1949 and Chevy 1950 and Ford 1951. My uncle had a '49 Buick and if my mind doesn't fail me you could hear it from a block away.Those dynaflows had a distinct sound.My aunt had a '49 Olds with its own sound.Didn't the dynaflows have a variable vane system in the trans? > My uncle had a '49 Buick and if my mind doesn't fail me you could hear > it from a block away.Those dynaflows had a distinct sound.My aunt had a > '49 Olds with its own sound.Didn't the dynaflows have a variable vane > system in the trans? The old Buick dynaflow seemed to have their own unique sound, sort of a perpetual low rumbling whine that became much more pronounced if you used low gear. As a child in the early 1950's I remember a neighbor with a 1950 or 1951 black Roadmaster - what an impressive looking and sounding car. The old straight 8 engine also had it's own unique mellow purring exhaust that was completely lost when they switched to the more powerful V8. My first car in high school (early 1960's) was a 1938 Buick Special Trunkback Touring Sedan. Black (what else), bullet headlights, two outboard spares, suicide rear doors and running boards. The three speed floor shift taans had the usual Buick whine in first and second gears. I was an 18 year old Elliott Ness!! Did you have to double clutch the Buick to go into first?My first car was to be a '52Roadmaster for $50.The radio antenna could be swept from side to side from its upper center windshield position.The deal fell through though and then bought a '58 Chevy convertible for $50 bucks.Fifty bucks today may get you a tank of gas. > Did you have to double clutch the Buick to go into first? Oh, sure, if the car was moving you had to double clutch to slide it in smoothly, just like so many other cars with an unsynchronized first gear. Owned a 1941 Plymouth and 1949 Dodge with fluid drive that also had to be double clutched. > My first car was to be a '52Roadmaster for $50.The radio antenna could > be swept from side to side from its upper center windshield position. Oh, yeah, I remember that feature. My green 1951 Hudson Hornet had a pivoting antenna too. What a hot rod...308 cubic inch six cylinder and 4 speed hydromatic really gave that car a lot of low end power. > The deal fell through though and then bought a '58 Chevy convertible > for $50 bucks. Nice car and a good deal. Sounds like the 1955 Oldsmobile 88 I got for about the same amount. > Fifty bucks today may get you a tank of gas. Having this enjoyable conversation made me think about all the cars I went through from age 17 through 20 - good grief! I went through 5 cars in 3.5 years! Hope yours were longer lived.... My cousin had a Hudson,what I remember most was that big clock on the dash,the legroom and the cables that drove the wipers.At the time I didn't make the connection to the Hudson department store.Maybe you can answer this,Studebaker came out in'28 with the hill holder feature.How did the interlock work between the brake and clutch? > My cousin had a Hudson,what I remember most was that big clock on the > dash,the legroom and the cables that drove the wipers. Yes, that big clock was quite a feature. Actually the whole drivers compartment was quite attractive. Interesting how car design comes full circle. The hulking-high-side-small-window look is back in full fashion again. > At the time I > didn't make the connection to the Hudson department store. I'm not aware of a connection - what do you know. > Maybe you can > answer this,Studebaker came out in'28 with the hill holder feature.How > did the interlock work between the brake and clutch? I don't know the details. My dad, the guy who gave me this fascination with cars, said they were one of the worst ideas to come along in a long time. They apparently wore out brakes like crazy if they were not adjusted just right. He mechaniced a lot during the 1920's and 1930's and was just full of war stores about cars. > My cousin had a Hudson,what I remember most was that big clock on the > dash,the legroom and the cables that drove the wipers.At the time I > didn't make the connection to the Hudson department store.Maybe you can > answer this,Studebaker came out in'28 with the hill holder feature.How > did the interlock work between the brake and clutch? There was a little valve that mounted inboard of the frame, just opposite the master cylinder (which mounted under the floor, on the outside of the frame rail) - if you were on an upgrade, the check ball would close off the line to the rear wheels as long as the clutch was held to the floor. A linkage to the clutch pedal would allow it to release, the trick was to adjust it to have the rear brakes release just as the clutch was starting to bite. nate > > My cousin had a Hudson,what I remember most was that big clock on the > > dash,the legroom and the cables that drove the wipers.At the time I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > nate Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, my description is based on experiences working on 50's and 60's Studes, not sure if the early Hill Holder worked the same or not. Also the Hill Holder was made by Bendix, I believe their trade name for it was No-Rol. nate Thanks for the information. 73. > The old Buick dynaflow seemed to have their own unique sound, sort of a > perpetual low rumbling whine that became much more pronounced if you > used low gear. More like a groan. As in do "I have to move...oh....". A one speed automatic. Incredibly slow1 > > The old Buick dynaflow seemed to have their own unique sound, sort of a > > perpetual low rumbling whine that became much more pronounced if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A one speed automatic. Incredibly slow1 Actually they were not all that slow. Like the belt drive CVT transmission the dynaflow doesn't shift gears in the "D" position, so you don't have the engine windup you would with a traditionally geared transmission. There were better solutions however. I suppose I should ask, compared to what? I was a day hop going to college at that time and my daily ride pickup was a Buick with dinoslush. Compared to my dad's Pontiac Star Chief and Ford Galaxy, the Buick was a real dog. The Dynaflow transmitted power through a fluid coupling which slipped a lot by design until it hit cruising speed. The cvt belt drive was a solid connection. > > > The old Buick dynaflow seemed to have their own unique sound, sort of a > > > perpetual low rumbling whine that became much more pronounced if you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you don't have the engine windup you would with a traditionally geared > transmission. There were better solutions however. Compared to most other cars on the road at the time in the early to mid 1950's the straight 8 with a Dynaflow was a reasonable performer. Remember many cars on the road in that period still came with inline 6 and 8 cylinder engines and V8's were just becoming popular. Those subsequent high compression big Buick V8s mated to a dynaflow hauled those chrome boats around pretty well. Remember with a single speed dynaflow you don't get the neck snap of gear changes in a hydramatic. Just smooth steady and surpsingly quick acceleration if you check the speedomoeter. Here's a bit of trivia that shows it was a viable transmission in its time. GM sold close to 30,000 Cadillacs with Dynaflow transmissions after the hydramatic plant burned. They renamed it the twin turbine. Sure you could compare a 1950's Buick with dynaflow to a later Ford Galaxy with a 390 and cruiseomatic but that would not be particularly meaningful. > I suppose I should ask, compared to what? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > you don't have the engine windup you would with a traditionally geared > > transmission. There were better solutions however. > Compared to most other cars on the road at the time in the early to mid > 1950's the straight 8 with a Dynaflow was a reasonable performer. It may have been reasonable, but it sure was slow! > Remember many cars on the road in that period still came with inline 6 As do current BMW's. > and 8 cylinder engines and V8's were just becoming popular. No there were Ford V-8's for awhile before. Those > subsequent high compression big Buick V8s mated to a dynaflow hauled > those chrome boats around pretty well. Remember with a single speed > dynaflow you don't get the neck snap of gear changes in a hydramatic. > Just smooth steady and surpsingly quick acceleration if you check the > speedomoeter. Yes smooth and steady but no in way quick. > Here's a bit of trivia that shows it was a viable transmission in its > time. GM sold close to 30,000 Cadillacs with Dynaflow transmissions > after the hydramatic plant burned. They renamed it the twin turbine. Refresh my recollection; were these two speed automatics? > Sure you could compare a 1950's Buick with dynaflow to a later Ford > Galaxy with a 390 and cruiseomatic but that would not be particularly > meaningful. Well, why not? Zero to 60 is a reasonable basis for comparison; isn't it? How about quarter mile times? I won't embarrass you by asking what you think of that lead-sled Buick's handling. For sure it wasn't as good as a Mercury or Ford of the times. More like a teenaged embarrassment. > > I suppose I should ask, compared to what? > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > you don't have the engine windup you would with a traditionally geared > > > transmission. There were better solutions however. > > Compared to most other cars on the road at the time in the early to mid > > 1950's the straight 8 with a Dynaflow was a reasonable performer. > > It may have been reasonable, but it sure was slow! Well, as with many comparisons, it is relative. Remember an 85hp flathead engine was thought of as a powerhouse back then. > > Remember many cars on the road in that period still came with inline 6 > > As do current BMW's. No comparison whatsoever, as I'm sure you know. A flathead Dodge of OHV Chevrolet 6 cylinder motor of that vintage bears no resemblance to a BMW 6 cylinder power plant. > > and 8 cylinder engines and V8's were just becoming popular. > > No there were Ford V-8's for awhile before. Yes, there were flat head Ford V-8's, as well as V-12 and V-16 engines. The most common engine was of the in-line variety. > Those > > subsequent high compression big Buick V8s mated to a dynaflow hauled [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes smooth and steady but no in way quick. Again, whether acceleration is quick or not relative to the time in which they were produced. > > Here's a bit of trivia that shows it was a viable transmission in its > > time. GM sold close to 30,000 Cadillacs with Dynaflow transmissions > > after the hydramatic plant burned. They renamed it the twin turbine. > > Refresh my recollection; were these two speed automatics? Drive just utilized the variable torque convertor. Low additionally engaged a lower gear. > > Sure you could compare a 1950's Buick with dynaflow to a later Ford > > Galaxy with a 390 and cruiseomatic but that would not be particularly > > meaningful. > > Well, why not? Zero to 60 is a reasonable basis for comparison; isn't > it? How about quarter mile times? It is a meaningless comparison because the Ford 390 Galaxy was by any definition a high performance sedan (or hardtop) meant to compete with the high performance Dodge, Plymouth, Chevy and Pontiac cars of the 60's. Yours is a very good example of trying to make sense of an apples and oranges comparison. > I won't embarrass you by asking what you think of that lead-sled Buick's > handling. Would you expect it to be any better or worse than it's contemporaries? I wouldn't - and I managed to drive many of those cars by my 21st birthday. Remember the boulevard ride was promoted by all american car manufacturers, not just the Buick division of GM. > For sure it wasn't as good as a Mercury or Ford of the times. More like > a teenaged embarrassment. In many of the ways important to car buyers back then it was better than a Ford or Mercury. What is a teenaged embarrassment??? > > > I suppose I should ask, compared to what? > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > you don't have the engine windup you would with a traditionally geared > > > > transmission. There were better solutions however. > > > Compared to most other cars on the road at the time in the early to mid > > > 1950's the straight 8 with a Dynaflow was a reasonable performer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, as with many comparisons, it is relative. Remember an 85hp > flathead engine was thought of as a powerhouse back then. No, not even then was the Buick Dynaflow considered a hot car. It was a dog compared to the Fords and Mercuries of the time. were produced. > > > Here's a bit of trivia that shows it was a viable transmission in its > > > time. GM sold close to 30,000 Cadillacs with Dynaflow transmissions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Drive just utilized the variable torque convertor. Low additionally > engaged a lower gear. So to get decent performance they punted on just using the torque converter alone. > > > Sure you could compare a 1950's Buick with dynaflow to a later Ford > > > Galaxy with a 390 and cruiseomatic but that would not be particularly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 60's. Yours is a very good example of trying to make sense of an > apples and oranges comparison. Well its not much of a comparison. The Ford was hot and the Buick Dynaflow was a dog not meant to compete. > > I won't embarrass you by asking what you think of that lead-sled Buick's > > handling. > > Would you expect it to be any better or worse than it's contemporaries? > I wouldn't - and I managed to drive many of those cars by my 21st > birthday. Sad. Remember the boulevard ride was promoted by all american car > manufacturers, not just the Buick division of GM. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In many of the ways important to car buyers back then it was better > than a Ford or Mercury. What is a teenaged embarrassment??? A car that he wouldn't be caught dead in, in front of people he wanted to impress. > > > > I suppose I should ask, compared to what? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > > geared > > > > > transmission. There were better solutions however. > > > > Compared to most other cars on the road at the time in the early to mid > > > > 1950's the straight 8 with a Dynaflow was a reasonable performer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, not even then was the Buick Dynaflow considered a hot car. It was a > dog compared to the Fords and Mercuries of the time. You need to reread my comments before posting again. I never said a Buick with a Dynaflow was a Hot Car. Just a reasonable performer along with most of the cars from Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Caddy, Hudson, Packard, Nash, etc. You seem fixated on proving a car from the 1950's was underpowered by comparing it to cars produced a decade or more later (Ford Galaxy 390). If it makes you feel good, that's ok, but the comparison is nonsense. > were produced. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So to get decent performance they punted on just using the torque > converter alone. You really need to go back and read up on the history of automobiles instead of making uninformed guesses about what motivated a car manufacturer to spend a lot of money developing a new transmission. The ones who remained in business didn't as you incorrectly state punt or make a stab in the dark decision. One hint: Automatic transmissions were quite new at the time and there were many designs as car manufacturers attempted to find a product that would be acceptable to consumers. There was little indication consumers would want to give up manually shifted transmissions. The ultimately successful hydramatic was at first not well accepted by most drivers. > > > > Sure you could compare a 1950's Buick with dynaflow to a later Ford > > > > Galaxy with a 390 and cruiseomatic but that would not be particularly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well its not much of a comparison. The Ford was hot and the Buick > Dynaflow was a dog not meant to compete. Sure they competed with one another for the same consumer dollars. In fact at the time a Buick or Olds was seen as a step up from a Ford or Chevy. Remember that most new cars were not sold to immature 18 year olds looking to torch the front springs, jack the rear and drop 3 deuces on a 283. > > > I won't embarrass you by asking what you think of that lead-sled Buick's > > > handling. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sad. Really. I guess it shows my comments come from real world experience unlike your uninformed guesses about automobile history. > Remember the boulevard ride was promoted by all american car > > manufacturers, not just the Buick division of GM. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A car that he wouldn't be caught dead in, in front of people he wanted > to impress. Yes, I know most teenagers go through several stages of immaturity. While most of them grow out of it, some it appears do not. > > > > > I suppose I should ask, compared to what? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > > > geared > > > > > > transmission. There were better solutions however. > My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet > when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate > transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was > the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art > by the other car makers? When I was a student in the late 60's I bought a low milage 1948 DeSoto with fluid drive from a retired couple. Unfortunately I wore out the clutch taking it out of gear at every traffic light. Apparently you were supposed to leave it in drive. It was probably just replaced by fully automatic transmissions. For those who don't remember, fluid drive was a partially automatic transmission. You needed the clutch to get in an out of reverse and drive. Once in drive you didn't use the clutch to change into higher gears. It was automatic. There was a also a separate low gear that you could get into and out of with the clutch. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned Time Traveler, Can you take me back to early 60's I'm looking for a 63' Impala with a 409/four speed for $3200, new of course. I had a 48' Plymouth with fluid drive, basiclly a standard 3speed tranny with a clutch and convertor which had no stator element. You could ether shift it like a normal three speed or stick it in third and use it like an automatic but from a standing stop it was real pig. I also had a VW bug had an automatic that was alittle like fluid drive, two speed transaxle with a real torqueconvertor and vacquum operated clutch. And then there was the Buick DynaFlow ,Basiclly a automatic that didn't shift but had a convertor where the stator blades changed pitch through the hydralics of the tranny some how. Not a great trans to move the 4800lbs of my 48' Buick RoadMaster. Rick >My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet >when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate >transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was >the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art >by the other car makers? People didn't expect great performance from their cars back then and gas was cheap. And most people didn't get full automatic transmissions, such as they were, because those were considered pretty upscale. So the fluid drive was an inexpensive way to create a "transmission" you didn't have to shift but without the expense and complexity of an automatic. The automatics of that time were also not particularly great. And the ones that were even moderately decent were large heavy monsters. But in the early 50's the Chevy powerglide two speed AT came out and it was pretty simple and durable. Several other makes also came out with 2 speeds ATs and soon after everyone had developed good 3 speed ATs with torque converters so your last statement is pretty much on the mark, the inefficient, low performance "fluid drive" systems were made obsolete by the modern ATs. I have a manual somewhere describing the maintenance of one of these Dodge Fluid drives and it's surprisingly maintenance intensive as far as checking and changing the oil in it and repairs looked like a real pain in the butt. >My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet >when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate >transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was >the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art >by the other car makers? Yes it was replaced by a newer transmission much the way three speed automatics were replaced by four speeds automatics and now those are beginning to be replaced by five speed automatics. Take a look at http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/012A/cover.htm for a pretty good explanation of the transmission and its workings. Steve B. > My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet > when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate > transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was > the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art > by the other car makers? See http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/012A/cover.htm > My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet > when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate > transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was > the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art > by the other There were actually two types of so-called semi-automatic transmission used in Chrysler motors cars. Both mated a fluid coupling to a standard foot operated clutch that was depressed to change gears in a manual transmission. The difference lay in the kind of transmission used. The first type was a standard 3 speed column shift transmission that one shifted just like a normal transmission. You could start in second gear on the flat or high gear on a downhill. The other version was an odd hybrid that allowed four forward gears by mating an throttle controlled high gear to a column shifted 2 speed transmission. The semi-automatic high gear could be selected when the column shift was in either position. Most people used the car as a sluggish 2 speed by leaving the column shift in third and using the gas pedal to shift into high gear. The low or first gear position was somewhat of a stump puller and your could get reasonable acceleration across the intersection. Both transmissions allowed the owner to sit at a traffic light with the clutch fully engaged and to make faultless starts with a manual transmission. I believe pre-war cars used an vacuum shifter an an overdrive unit and post WWII cars used a hydraulic shifter on non-od gears for the toe-shifter. Why weren't they successful? Well, they were produced for over 10 years, which ain't so bad. Seriously, they represented a company putting its corporate toe-in-the-water at a time when the GM hydramatic was still an experiment (or at least not widely accepted) and people were still very much used to cars with manual transmissions. A bit of both worlds. And I think the semi-automatic allowed Chrysler to play catch-up once it became clear that fully automated transmissions were more than a fad. Back then either semi-automatic transmission was pretty cutting edge stuff with those inline l-head motors. Once the american car makers began to develop higher horsepower engines with enough ooomph to use an automatic transmission effectively I think an irreversible changeover was also started. > My father had a '51 Dodge with Fluid Drive.Reading a '41 sales pamphlet > when this transmission came out you get the impression of an ultimate > transmission.The span of its production was from'41 to '53-'54.What was > the reason for its demise?Was it made obsolete by the state of the art > by the other car makers? My 1959 Motor manual has a nice description of the fluid drive M-6 transmission as used in the 1952-54 Chrysler and Imperials. The cross-section shows a torque converter followed by a manual clutch then followed by a hydraulically shifted transmission. The transmission had two manually selected speed ranges, low and high. The hydraulic shifter provided automatic shifts between first and second and also between third and fourth. According to the Motor manual 98% of driving (including starting) could be accomplished in high range. This design is really a hybrid between conventional twin shaft manual transmissions with some automation thrown in. The transmission required a brief interuption in torque to prompt the upshift. This came from either briefly lifting off the throttle or interrupting ignition. The controls were pretty crude and was likely expensive to produce. Your bringing up of Motor books posed a thought.A few weeks ago I was purging my bookcase of no longer needed books.I had a few Motor books from the '70s,then realized that I have not seen the Motor name in years.Are they still around? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.