Chrysler 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?

Reply to
Time Traveler
Loading thread data ...

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

formatting link

Reply to
Professor

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:

formatting link
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

Reply to
William R. Watt

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

Reply to
rickbenites

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.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

As I said... "I believe"... I'm not always right like you are Dan... LOL

Professor www.telstar-electr> >

Reply to
Professor

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.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

You expect us to read that and not bust up laughing????!!!!! OOOOOOkay.......

Reply to
Kruse

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

formatting link
for apretty good explanation of the transmission and its workings. Steve B.

Reply to
Steve B.

Well Dan... I can afford to make a stab at a reply... with you around to always correct me... LOL

Professor

formatting link

Reply to
Professor

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!!

Reply to
Time Traveler

Does r-13 sound familiar....

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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 -

formatting link
Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

See

formatting link

Reply to
C. E. White

But doesn't it use a fluid clutch?

Ed

Reply to
Ed White

But doesn't it use a fluid clutch?

Ed

Reply to
Ed White

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.

Reply to
John S.

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Tit for tat.

Reply to
John Kunkel

"Ashton Crusher" wrote

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...?

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.