I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the snow machines. My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.
Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger vehicle?
I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably tried and tested design.
One of the reasons Volvo bought Dutch car maker DAF (gosh, was it the late 60s, or 70s) was to control DAF's patents on the CVT they had been using with success for some years......DAFs were small, light cars and in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements.
DAFs were rebadged as little Volvos, but don't think any were sent to the US. Assume that Volvo continued development of the concept and that is what is available in the Ford 500 since it is Volvo-based.
Have never heard of any problems with modern units, although I can certainly remember the uneasy feeling of driving in early 60s Buicks with Super Turbine Drive.......waiting for them to shift (course, they never did). Guess you get used to it quick enough.
Don't confuse Honda's CVCC Civic with CVT (wasn't it Compound Vortex Combustion Chamber or similar).
Re: early Euro automatics: Jos Lucas (The Prince of Darkness) had a magnetic transmission: somehow it shifted by applying electric current to different points in a tranny filled with some kind of ferrous powder which solidified when the juice was applied .....geees, does't that sound like a British idea? I think the first successful automatic sold in great numbers in Europe was the Warner Gear (Jaguar and many others) which oddly enough was developed for and with Studebaker. Didn't Citroen (sp?) have something called Citromatic. Hope DAF didn't called their's DAFamatic......that would be right up there with Dodge Gyromatic.
Yeah - a boring Sunday morning with nothing better to do!
GM had prototype CVTs in the 1930s, but didn't want to waste any more R&D money after their successful launch of the four speed HydraMatic in 1938.
I have seen some DAFs on US soil, mostly back in the '60s. Parts and service were impossible, as they were for Saabs in those days. No marketing of DAFs in the US ever took place, scared off by a then-strong VW.
The problem with GM's hydrokinetic transmissions, notably from Buick Division, was their horrible efficiency. GM didn't think this was a problem, and the Buick Division president was quoted, after his 1958 Buick Super came in dead last in the '58 Mobile Economy Run, "Well...we have to keep our friends at the oil companies happy!"
Several other inefficient hydrokinetic examples from GM filled the market, from Allison's bus V-drive bus transmission in 1938 to everything from Buick, Chevy's cheaply designed Powerglide and more inefficient and unreliable Turboglide, and the Detroit Transmission 2 speed with "switch pitch" converter, the 275, found in many GM intermediates of the 1960s. Odd, since they had the most efficient automatic transmission on the market for years with the HydraMatic. Even the 1956 Dual Coupling aluminum case version was more efficient than any of GM's horrible hydrokinetic models, including the vaunted THM 400 and what came later.
Exactly...which was a patentable name for a stratfied charge engine. I still drive one!
OH yes, it does...and so very typically Lucas!
Jag used a licensed version of GM's HydraMatic back in the '50s, as did Leyland's truck and bus division, for years. The B-W automatic of Euro design came a bit later. B-W already was happy with their royalties from Ford for their MX (Fordomatic) and, after AMC's contract for HydraMatics expired in '57, supplied AMC for all automatics until they decided to exit the business, forcing AMC to go to Chrysler for Torqueflites.
Yes...and, being French in design, it was as bad as Packard's Ultramatic.
Those truck badges on early '50s Dodges always looked like "Gynomatic" to me, but I was too young to understand the implications.
Yes, all the Sunday morning political shows are done. Even Robert Novak concedes the Republipedoes are OUT!
There is one in Wichita I know of and a early 60s DAF Dafodil here in Kansas City.
It was actually a French idea and was on Renaults. many were imported here. Those still in existence tend to be ones converted to electric cars. The mag powder clutch was not retained.
I think the first successful automatic sold
A shitbox. It's the reason half or more V8 Jag swaps were done.
The other significant thing was thatDAFs were Dutch. Holland has virtually no hills, which was crucial to the success of these early CVTs, since they would soon burn out otherwise.
I recently test drove a CVT Caliber, and am looking seriously at a CVT Compass as a replacement for my Focus. I really liked the CVT on the Caliber. Some people say they feel sluggush, but that's just an illusion caused by the lack of any shifts. In fact they go like stink because the engine gets up on the cam and stays there, pumping out max hp in a steady stream.
Ford is putting them in the 500 and Freestyle, Nissan in the Murano, and they're common in Europe.
Based on my test drive, I think they're the wave of the future if they prove reliable, which I think is likely because they're basically very simple. And if you look at their cost as an option in the Caliber and Compass, they're about the same price as the regular 4-speed Chrysler automatic.
I agree - They lack perceived acceleration, but not the real thing.
I guess everybody knows how they're made. They use a metal chain-like belt that can have toothed sides that can hook into teeth on the sides of the pulleys. They metal belt doesn't slip (that's not what this is for) but rather it is always running on the two pulleys. The pulley adjustment is just like you'd imagine from looking at a golf cart. The pulleys are coned and the two sides just squeeze in and out. No real change there.
DAF's were marketed inthe USA, at least here in New England. I saw several DAF dealers here in Connecticut and the USA headquarters for SAAB was in New Haven, CT from their start of U.S. marketing around
1955 up until around 1995 when SAAB USA moved to Atlanta.
Perhaps becasue of their local marketing, parts and service for both DAF and SAAB were plentiful, at least here in Connecticut. I drove two of the 3 cylinder 2 cycle SAABS back in the 60's and 70's - great cars, if you didn't mind the lack of engine braking while in free wheeling mode. The free-wheeling saved the 2-cycle engine from oil starvation under low throttle high torque conditions (decelerating down a hill, for example). Just had to throw in one can of SAAB premium "M" oil with each 7 to 8 gallons of fuel.
Two friends of mine had DAF Dafodils - they were fairly reliable cars albeit a bit "funky". New England doesn't have much flat land. The hills around here didn't seem to destroy those CVT transmissions. Periodic belt replacement was all that was necessary.
I later had two Packards with Ultramatic drive - both were reliable transmissions. The 1953 Packard had the original Ultramatic, while my
1955 Packard had the Twin-Ultramatic. Both were advanced transmissions for their day that included, among other features, lock up torque converters. Packard was the ONLY U.S. independant automaker to ever build its own automatic transmissions.
The EARLY 1955 Twin-Ultramatics did have main shaft bearing problems that wore excessively and destroyed seals. Packard rapidly fixed the problem but it did damage their reputation. The 1956 "senior" Packards such as the Patricians did have a push buttom servo controlled transmission shifter that caused problems but, properly speaking, that wasn't due to the transmission.
I always thought that the Borg-Warner automatics as used by Studebaker and American Motors (and in some Jeep products before the Chrysler takeover) were bullet proof .
I owned a 1971 Avanti II (the Studebaker designed sports car) that while it had the Corvette LT1 engine installed by the factory, it still used the Studebaker Borg-Warner automatic. The engine was tuned to 300 HP and I ran the car to 155,000 with NO transmission problems.
I also had a 1962 Rambler that I later sold to a neighbor. He ran the car to 200,000 miles with one engine rebuild and NO rebuilds to the Borg-Warner automatic. Rambler called it "Flash-O-Matic" (GRIN).
Independant transmission shops always bad-mouthed the Borg-Warner automatic, in part because they didn't have the knowledge or the skill level to do successful rebuilds. They didn't see as many and didn't have the training or the tools.
Thus, they were regionally marketed. DAF sales/service were non-existant on the West Coast, and Saab was extremely spotty. I do remember when the V4s came out, and there was a dealer in LA selling them, but again, service and parts were a real bear. Once Saab's dealership network started to expand, they sold more V4s. The 2 strokes, although I do remember them in that era, were very, very rare. More common was the drool from the original Subarus, which were
2 strokes. The "Subes" were heavily marketed on the West Coast starting around 1969 as competition for VW's "bug," but VW had come out with the new, popular squareback and notchback 1500 Varient models, with which Sube couldn't compete.
They probably migrated westward, were seen for a short time, and disappeared.
The problem with the Ultramatic was that John De Lorean's team decided, for some odd reason, that they'd seal up the torque converter shell with a bronze sleeve bushing with NO seal and NO oil rifling. As mileage would pile up, the bushing would wear, line oil pressure would decrease, and the transmission would self-destruct due to lack of lube oil. With the straight 8s, this bushing didn't wear all that fast because of lower TC temperatures and pressures, but when handling the torque of the V8s starting in '55, it became a real nasty problem.
The first use of a torque converter clutch was in the Allison V-drive bus transmission from GM in 1938. I'm convinced that De Lorean got his ideas for the Ultramatic from that particular transmission...four element torque converter (the bus trans had five), torque conveter clutch to direct drive...same stuff in a much smaller package. It was the Ultramatic project that made De Lorean attractive to GM, and he left Packard before things started to cave in, including all the service problems with his Ultramatic.
There is a shop out here in LA, Reseda Transmission, that knows the Ultramatic very well, and he rebuilds them with a proper oil seal on the torque converter shell bushing and with slotting on the bushing itself to promote better lubrication, and they last well enough. Still, they're "slushboxes," and do not get much power to the rear wheels, especially at low speeds or heavy loads. What sells a lot better for him is a THM700R4 conversion kit he sells to adapt the Packard straight 8s and V8s to the moderm GM transmission. He has a '56 Patrician so equipped, and the performance AND economy are somewhat startling. Driving his Patrician and then driving a 374" equipped '56 with the slushbox is the difference between driving a Buick GS and a '48 Super with Dynaflow. The Packard V8, while having oil pump and a few other teething problems, was a well designed package, many parts of which popped up in Chrysler "A" engines later, after Chrysler bought the near-new Packard engine plant from Studebaker. Stude had already bet their money on their 289 and thought the Packard V8 too big to fit their product line, probably not a very good decision.
That was a Ford/Autolite mess that was unwittingly "road tested" by Packard for Ford. You'll remember the electric punch button setups for the Ford MX transmission in the '57-'58 Mercs and the '58 Edsels...that was the same basic package, WITHOUT the problem that led to many '56 Packards going into park at road speed. For some reason, Autolite had designed the serve package so that when battery was removed, it went into park, regardless of vehicle motion...a design screw-up that cost Packard dearly in its last year.
The die was already cast, though, as Nance had already negotiated the sale of Packard to Studebaker at the end of the '55 model year, when it became obvious that Packard didn't have the capital or design talent to keep up with their traditional competition, Cadillac. Even the very clever "refreshening" of the '51 body by talented stylist Dick Teague (the '55-'56 Packards weren't "new" bodies at all...just new sheet metal) couldn't save Packard against Harley Earle's P38 treatment of Cadillac's '48-'56 styling, and the Ultramatic, as well as warped oil pump bodies, finished off Packard's reputation for quality forever. As if a concession, '56 Cadillacs were also "lemons," with some of Cadillac Division's biggest design gaffes of all time. Failures on the road of '56 Cads were the stuff of legend, as they were on '56 Packards.
B-Ws were tough boxes. They just didn't evolve much past the early '50s control-wise...lack of partial throttle downshift, clunky shift "feel," etc. But they were good, solid transmissions that rarely gave trouble. AMC's moving to the Torqueflites after B-W exited the business in the US was an improvement for AMC, though, and it started AMC down the road to acquisition by Chrysler. The AMC/Chrysler merger was something Iacocca had wanted from Day 1, but was afraid that anti-trust litigation would quash it. His idea later became reality after the Reaganites neutered anti-trust enforcement and the FTC. It was pretty apparent by '86, though, that AMC would fail like Chrysler almost did in the late '70s, so the FTC, after token investigations, allowed the merger.
B-W was also used in Checkers when they had Continental 6s as their power, and they were famous for NEVER needing rebuilds, even with abusive and harsh taxi cab service and non-existant maintenance.
Stude called it something else, I cannot recall. Later versions of the B-W had a feature later stolen by Ford that allowed 2nd gear starts, only important in the North and New England, where ice was a continual problem. Ford saw value in this feature and added it into their FMX redo of the original B-W designed three band Fordomatic (MX) and retained it in the first few years of the C4 and C6 tranmissions, later going to 'SelectShift" with a manual selection of 1 or 2 at any time...supposedly. Both the C4 and C6 designed borrowed heavily on the A-727 and A-904 Torqueflite design, and Ford paid Chrysler up-front fees for parts of their design. The orignal, however, was and is still better.
That all changed when the Japs went to B-W for their automatics in the '60s. The Toyota 830 is a B-W box built under license, as were the Nissans. VW also went to B-W for their automatic transaxles in their Varient/1600 series in the late '60s. All had one annoying feature common to all B-Ws...bad modulation of the 1-2 shift and indifferent part throttle downshifts, but they were very durable.
B-W autos weren't complicated at all, and were far easier than redoing, say, a Dual Coupling HydraMatic or the horrid Chevy Turboglide. Twin Turbine Dynaflows were also complex rebuilds that commanded high prices. One reason shops didn't like B-Ws is because they never saw them very often....they were too durable! Money hungry tranny shops loved GM the best, especially in the late '70s and '80s during the height of the THM200 scam by GM...a Chevette transmission in V6 and V8 powered cars, for which they (again) were sued and lost.
misc tranny comments.....(please make allowances for the passage of time & my memory)
oddly enough, my first car was a '56 Packard Four Hundred with Twin-Ultramatic......car was 10 years old when I got it and the tranny was awesome!!!! and, since I was 18 years old, you can believe that I beat on it. Eventually, however, it started to leak......had it rebuilt by Aamco and it was almost as good as new.....10 years later, only a private 1 man shop would work on it and they never got the final "shift" (actually engagement of lock-up clutch) right.....and it burned it up pretty quick.But considering the "makeshift" nature of mods to the original Ultramatic, the weight of the car, and the difference in output of the V8 vs S8, it did a good job. Always liked the "double passing gears" : first downshift was just the clutch unlocking and torque converter going online - adequate for most passing situations.......second downshift added low gear and wow, did it fly!
speaking of weight, I remember that one of the modifications for '56 was making the case out of aluminum instead of iron.....which reduced weight something like 95 pounds. Geees, what did the thing weigh?
other: of course, John DeLorean was behind the '56 pushbutton control fiasco and other gadgets, but had nothing to do with the original Ultramatic of '50.........have some articles somewhere by the principal designer, Forest McFarland, in which he says the main problem with the V8 application was that the clutch wasn't made larger. and, it is my understanding that TU had a much better record in the '56 Golden Hawk......although still dealing with the massive power, the car was
1000 pounds lighter. don't know how it worked in '55 & "56 Hudsons & Nashes, but the V8 itself was less troublesome in Hawk & Hahes since it didn't have the vacuum booster on the oil pump.)
Stude automatics: the original '50 "Studebaker Automatic Drive" was from the Borg-Warner Warner Gear Division and also featured a lock-up torque converter clutch with virtually no durability problems. That tranny was used by Stude thru '55. Since Stude production had fallen so much (and by all indications, S-P wanted to use more Ultramatics in Studes following Packard's purchase of Stude in June 1954) the Warner Gear tranny tooling was shipped off and used by Jaguar and others in Europe.
BW then furnished a lighter-duty unit which Stude called Flight-O-Matic (Flash-O-Matic at AMC, Fordomatic, Mercomatic at FoMoCo). a decent tranny, but not as good as the old Warner Gear version (didn't have the lock-up, anti-creep, fewer bands, etc). It was beefed-up for the Avanti as "Power Shift" and handled the power well.....also available in AMC (forget what they called it). I had '67 & '72 Avantis with it and it was acceptable.......although I've never heard an adequate explanation of why B-Ws started in 2nd gear. But my '80 Avanti had Turbo-Hydro 400 and it was much better (but much newer design).
But perhaps the best engine/tranny/car combination I ever had was a '67 Checker: Chevy 327 with a Cruise-O-Matic (C6?? it had Drive 1 and Drive 2 positions).......a great car!
I also wonder if a version stripped of its automatic control circuitry could replace conventional manuals. They would have far fewer parts, and be much easier to learn to drive (no need to clutch when shifting, for example).
The high cost of BW rebuilds is why many Jags were converted to V-8/US automatic power. Personally I would rather have a 5 speed manual, which people pay stupid sums for kits to put a Toyota five speed behind the XK engine. The Toyota five speed is cheaply available and there is no reason to pay big money when one can simply have a scattershield-style bellhousing made for about $600.
There is also the "Quarterbreed" conversion which puts a THM350 or
700R4 behind the XJ engine.
formatting link
Which Jaguars are compatible with this conversion?
XJ6 Quarterbreed kits are for all 68 to 87 XJ6 models (XJ6, XJ6C, XJ6L). Kits for XJ12, XJS, Mark I, II, IX or X are available too. No kits for ETypes yet. The Jaguar T400 from later V12 engines and the German ZF transmission on 1988-on XJ6's (XJ40) will not bolt to a pre-88 Jaguar 6-cylinder nor to early V12s equipped with a Borg-Warner. There's never been a GM trans behind a Jaguar 6-cylinder until John's Cars Quarterbreed.
Why should I put a GM Transmission in my XJ6? The archaic, light duty BW (derived from a 1962 Rambler design) and its idiosyncrasies are expelled by a GM Turbo Hydra-matic (THM) transmission. Prime benefits of the Quarterbreed conversion:
Strong and reliable - Jaguar uses a GM THM in their later V12 cars, Rolls-Royce has used them since 1969. * Quarterbreed cars are quicker - less mass, better gear ratios and stall speeds. They also have consistent upshift and downshift characteristics. * Older Jaguars with a 3.08, 3.31 or 3.54 rear axle ratio really benefit from a GM overdrive, relaxing a buzzy 3000 RPM cruising speed to a calming 2100+. Lower RPM means better gas mileage and less engine wear and tear. * Years later - if your Quarterbreed needs tranny service in Bass Lake, CA., you can have it repaired for a fraction of the BW price tag, not to mention the same day. * Faster Starts - the GM flywheel-starter combination creates more torque and cranks faster... Plus you'll eliminate the death rattle flywheel and the $$$ Lucas (Prince of Darkness) starter. * Finally, when your cat finally uses up all 9 lives and it's time for a V8 - you will already have the transmission, starter and more. I will even allow you 0.00+ for the QB kit leftovers returned when you go Chevy V8.
The Jaguar twin cam 6-cylinder is retained without modification to it or the car. The shifter retains its original appearance. Check out our Customer Testimonials.
Which transmission should I use?
T350 for 1982 to 1987 Jags (with a 2.88 differential). Inexperienced drivers can lug the Jag motor (258 CID) when combined with a T700 30% overdrive and a 2.88 rear end. * T700 overdrive for pre-1982 cars (with a 3.08, 3.31 or 3.54 differential) to reduce cruising RPM. * T400 is not recommended as it is more involved and not necessary for the horsepower/torque of a 4.2L. * Don't use a 4L60E or 4L80E on your Quarterbreed.
John's Cars is the home of halfbreeds - those wonderfully English cars with American drivelines. While not everyone loves my V8 conversions, most loathe the Borg-Warner (BW) automatic transmission. Time for another John's Cars exclusive retrofit: Jaguar Body + Jaguar V12 Motor + GM T700 Overdrive + Jaguar Suspension = V12 QUARTERBREED (QB)
What is the V12 Quarterbreed? MORE QB's Quarterbreed for XJ6 Quarterbreed for Marks
The V12 Quarterbreed is a John's Cars kit that allows you to put a GM T700 overdrive transmission behind a Jaguar V12 engine. This kit is not compatible with the V12 XKE although it is under consideration.
This conversion is compatible with all Jaguars in the XJ series that have a V12 motor and GM T400 hydramatic. This includes all 1978 to 1996 XJS and XJS HE and all 1978 to 1992 XJ12 models (XJ12, XJ12L, XJ12C). This conversion is compatible with left-hand and right-hand drive cars.
This kit is not compatible with the V12 XKE although it is under consideration. Quarterbreed kits for Jag 6-cylinders (XJ6 Sedans, Mark I, II, IX or X models) are available - call for free info.
There is a street rod in the area with a Weber-carbed 4.2 and the John's 700R4 swap whose owner reports complete satisfaction.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:01:53 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Itsfrom Click) wrote:
The first Ultramatic came out in mid '48 in the new "bathtubs" to compete with Buick's new Dynaflow. Buick already had a better engine, and Packard felt that they'd better have an automatic transmission if they were going to keep offering their obsolete flathead 8. De Lorean hired on at Packard in early 1952 after getting a better offer from them to quit his new job at Chrysler's engineering department in Highland Park, MI. He soon replaced a retiring Forest McFarland as chief of R&D at Packard, and it was he who updated the Ultramatic to "Twin Ultramatic" and contracted with Ford's Autolite for the electric control for '56...a fatal flaw. James Nance, head of Packard, had hoped that De Lorean's and stylist Dick Teague's young talents could combine to save Packard from their '48-'50 "bathtub" fiasco and their indifferent styling of '51-'54, but they just didn't have enough capital to work with, and Packard's ancient factory was ill suited for modern mass production. As it was, Teague's new body for the '55s was scrapped and a clever "remake" of the '51 body sufficed for '55 and '56. The V8s came about three years too late, and the Ultramatic already had a nasty reputation when compared to GM's HydraMatic and even Buick's Dynaflow. Had Packard had the V8s before Buick introduced theirs in '53, had the Ultramatic project gone a bit better and had they been able to switch over to Dick Teague's new body styles slated for '57, Packard might have been able to give GM and Ford some serious gas for awhile competing against their more profitable high-end cars. A resurgent Packard would've wiped out Ford's Edsel even worse than it turned out, and GM's Buick and Olds divisions would've had some serious erosion. As it turned out, the takeover of Packard by the Studebakers was more a marriage of two also-rans, with predictable results.
See above.
That wasn't really a problem, so long as line pressure could be maintained. The real problem was that the torque converter output shaft bushing would wear and start to leak a lot of oil, thus depriving the lockup clutch servo (and every other servo in the transmission, not to mention the lube lines) of pressure, thus causing the TCC to start to slip. The straight 8s could tolerate this awhile longer, since they were quite a bit lower in torque than, especially, the '56 V8. Once the bushing would leak, a predictable series of failure events would happen, first with a lack of lube oil to the rear of the transmission, then overheating of fluid caused by converter clutch slippage, and total failure shortly thereafter. Even Packard fanciers these days replace the Ultramatic with a THM700R4. Stick shift or GM converted '55 and '56 Packards also command premium prices over Ultramatic examples except for purists. Another factor was inefficiency...much power produced by the Packard 374 was wasted in the 4 element torque converter during acceleration, much as it was in contemporary Buicks. There is only one source I know of in the world for Ultramatic master kits anymore, and he's retiring any day now....Reseda Transmission in Los Angeles.
Hard to say...not that many Golden Hawks were produced! Many Golden Hawk owners have similarly ditched the Ultramatic for the THM400 and THM700R4 conversions.
The oil pump mess on the '56s was due to a flimsy bottom casting that would warp and cause leaks, thus lowering oil gallery pressure. Hudsons and Nashes used electric wipers and didn't need the vacuum pump, which was replaced with a steel plate that did not warp.
The '56 Hudson and Nash used the Packard V8, but with GM's discontinued (for cars, not trucks) Dual Range HydraMatic. Although these cars looked like they were more suited for a rest home than anywhere else, they could easily eat lesser Chevies and Fords, even Oldsmobiles, due to their huge displacement and efficient transmission.
GM loved the deal, since they were switching over to the new Dual Coupling HydraMatic on mid-'56 cars, and providing both the new AMC and GMC Truck and Coach with cast iron HydraMatics cleaned up lots of surplus cases and parts until 1962. A '56 Hudson or Nash so equipped would run rings around any '56 Packard, simply due to the better transmission of power to the rear axle. I know...I had a '56 Hudson Wasp Hollywood sedan for awhile, and I've also driven a few '55 and '56 Packards. The Packards accelerate like a bus in comparison. One drive in that car told the tale of why Nash had to fold their tent...the car drove like a pre-war Ford and couldn't safely handle the power of the big Packard V8. Brakes were as bad as Chrysler's Lockheed brakes of that era...meaning horrible. All the Big 3 cars handled and rode far better than the Hudsons/Nashes of '55-'56. The Hudson would wallow, bounce and shoulder side to side in the most disconcerting fashion, even worse than a '37 Ford. Also, interior appointments in the Hudson harkened back to around 1946. They simply could not compete. By '58, George Romney's new AMC dumped the big Hudsons and Nashes and concentrated on their bread and butter...the Rambler and Metropolitain lines.
That was the DG-150/200 three band, a heavy beast, almost outweighing GM's chunky HydraMatic.
The ink on the Stude takeover was dried in early 1955, with conveyance of all Packard equities to Studebaker at the end of 1956 production. The first thing the Studes did was shut down the Detroit Packard factory and trash all the Packard archives and records. Next, they sold the near-new Packard engine plant to Chrysler. That's where all those "A" engine hydraulic lifters came from, as well as many other "A" engine parts.
Studebaker rejected the Ultramatic due its bad reputation after the Golden Hawk had problems with it, preferring to stay with B-W until
1964. Also, retaining the Ultramatic would've made keeping the Detroit plant open, something that was a non-starter with the Studes. B-W also provided auto transmissions for Checker Motors up until 1971, even after going to Chevrolet Division engines in 1964. Prior to that, unless special ordered, all Checkers used Continental 223" 6s with B-W Model 8s, while optional Chevy V8s used the Model 12, same as what was used by Studebaker and licensed to Ford as the original MX.
True to AMC after GM ceased providing Dual Range Hydra Matics for AMC at the end of the '62 model year. '63 onward AMC used B-Ws exclusively, while Stupidbaker continued using B-Ws all along. GM had closed the cast iron lines at Detroit Transmission to make way for the new Turbo HydraMatic 400 line which debuted in '64.
'Flash-O-Matic,' derisively known as "Flush-O-Matic" in view of superior offerings from the Big 3 at the time.
That was a B-W Model 12 design which Studebaker used to replace the B-W DG150/200 three band from 1956 until 1964. Avantis with B-Ws that I saw had a similar quadrant to Ford MX/FMX/C4/C6s until '68. Common mistake also with Ford drivers who didn't start the car in the
*second* drive position (the green dot). Ford got the second gear start option from B-W and found it a popular feature for drivers in the NE and north, who had to drive on ice all the time. The reduced torque at the rear wheels due to a second gear start would prevent wheel spin. That's why they carried through the second gear start ability with the 1968 revision called "SelectShift" on all later C4s and C6s.
1964, introduced on the Cadillac DeVille and above cars. The base Series 62, the Series 75 limos and Commercial Chassis used leftover Dual Coupling HydraMatics until late in '64 when they were depleted. They're actually more desirable cars. The "new" 390 with a Dual Coupling would out accelerate any THM400 car every time and turn in better fuel economy...GM duping the public...again...still? The other part of the plant that was producing Rotos for Olds and Pontiac would then be shut down in late '64, and Buick, Olds and Pontiac intermediates would get stuck with Buick's 275 and 300 2 speeder with a switch pitch converter while GM converted those lines to THM400 production. Again, performance and economy suffered. Meanwhile, Chevrolet Divsion, by then managed by (guess who?) John De Lorean, was given the OK to build their own, cheapened version of the THM called the 350, while Buick converted their 275/300 production to the THM375 to supply Buick and Pontiac. For a few years there, it could get quite confusing as to what car had what transmission, especially at Pontiac.
If it was a '67 A-series Marathon, it had a B-W 12, like AMC V8 cars. When CMC abandoned Continental for engines due to Continental's refusal to stay in the automotive gas engine business, they opted for the Chevy 6s and V8s and used the B-W 8 or 12 until 1971, when they went with the THM350 from Chevrolet Division. From about '65 to the end, B-W was supplying units simply to supply Checker and AMC and by '71, they decided to exit the US business, which sent Checker to GM for a "package deal" on Chevy engines and transmissions, and sent AMC to Chrysler begging for Torqueflites.
The big reason B-W finally left the US transmission market was Ford. When the MX/FMX was replaced by the C6 in '66, B-W lost their biggest income stream and parts buyer, since the C4/C6s were strictly a Ford product built with a lot of Chrysler's A-727 Torqueflite design. Simply supplying AMC and Checker wasn't attractive long term to B-W, as sales of both were on the decline. By that time, B-W's transmission business was focusing on eliminating US manufacturing altogether, preferring to live on design/license work done for the Japanese and Euro builders. Almost all Japanese cars imported to the US in the '70s had a B-W licensed box, as did VWs.
Checker's reputation for economical and rugged operation went down the crapper with the Chevrolet conversion. The old Continentals, which had been around since the late '20s, and B-Ws were bullet proof in taxi and airport/hotel shuttle service, while the Chevrolets were...well...Chevrolets. It was after the first round of GM powered Checkers that many fleet operators started going back to Chrysler to avoid the short engine life of Chevy V8s, which would usually barely make 70-80K miles before major work was needed. Soft camshafts and "walking" main bearing caps were a Chevrolet trademark well into the '80s.
It wasn't uncommon for the lowly old Connie 6 to rack up 300K miles without having its head off. One fleet I worked for had a few '61 Checker Aerobuses with Connie 6s and B-W 8s. The longest toothed one had over 402K on it and was still original except for a valve grind. The B-W had only been drained and bands adjusted...period.
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.