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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nice car and a good deal. Sounds like the 1955 Oldsmobile 88 I got for about the same amount.
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I'm not aware of a connection - what do you know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.