Chrysler Fluid Drive

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.

Reply to
John S.
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
rikoski

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 mean> I suppose I should ask, compared to what?

Reply to
John S.

It may have been reasonable, but it sure was slow!

As do current BMW's.

No there were Ford V-8's for awhile before.

Those

Yes smooth and steady but no in way quick.

Refresh my recollection; were these two speed automatics?

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.

Reply to
rikoski

Well, as with many comparisons, it is relative. Remember an 85hp flathead engine was thought of as a powerhouse back then.

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.

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.

Again, whether acceleration is quick or not relative to the time in which they were produced.

Drive just utilized the variable torque convertor. Low additionally engaged a lower gear.

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.

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.

In many of the ways important to car buyers back then it was better than a Ford or Mercury. What is a teenaged embarrassment???

Reply to
John S.

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.

So to get decent performance they punted on just using the torque converter alone.

Well its not much of a comparison. The Ford was hot and the Buick Dynaflow was a dog not meant to compete.

Sad.

Remember the boulevard ride was promoted by all american car

A car that he wouldn't be caught dead in, in front of people he wanted to impress.

Reply to
rikoski

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.

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 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.

Really. I guess it shows my comments come from real world experience unlike your uninformed guesses about automobile history.

Yes, I know most teenagers go through several stages of immaturity. While most of them grow out of it, some it appears do not.

Reply to
John S.

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.