Hot Rods 1964 Buick 401 Nailhead Dynaflow transmission

Hi All.....just bought a completely rebuilt 401 with Dynaflow trans that is going into a highly modified 1958 Morgan. Got it mounted in the frame, barely as I will need to relocate the oil filter. My issue/question is that on the drivers side of the trans just above the pan and there is a small rocker arm that extends over the frame rail by about 1/2 and inch and will not allow me to drop the trans to the needed location. What is this? Can it be removed? or am I going to need to notch my frame, which i am not real excited about? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

I ‘think’ that is an accumulator control lever. It appears to me that reconfiguring the lever and how it secures to the shaft could save a bit of space. If the lever was a single ‘thickness’, fabricated with a base just wide enough to accept a set screw to lock it to the shaft, the shaft could be shortened.

For example, imagine a hex nut that would fit the shaft diameter with a lever welded to one of the ‘flats’ and a set screw into another flat. Now, replace the set screw idea with a short piece of round drilled to shaft diameter and follow through with lever and set screw.

edit: just took another look at your pic. no need to fabricate another lever. you could make a base like described above, cut away the OE clamping part, and attach the existing lever to the new narrower base.

Just an idea…..may or may not work for you. Another thought…..though far more expensive….consider adapting a different transmission.

Ray

 

Can you post a pic with the arm removed so we can see what the shaft looks like. Maybe you could drill and tap the shaft and cut off some of the arm. If it's only 1/2 inch, maybe a hammer to the frame would do it.


.bjb

 

The shaft sticking out is the stator control. If it isn't connected the high stall function will not work when the accelerator pedal is floored. It pretty much has to be there for full trans functions.

 

I believe a 1958 Morgan has a frame made out of Ash wood.

 

I have the body only and have fabbed up a ladder chassis to mount the body to. So this is basically like a track T but with a 1958 Morgan body. The frame rails are are 3 x 43 by 1/4 inch thick.

 

Also.....thank you Greybeard360 for identifying the offending part! Just need to figure out how best to address this issue.

 

Are you familiar with Dynaflows?

 

not one bit! any insight would be highly beneficial!

 

I always thought that 64 nailhead had the one year Turbo 400, 65-66 had the switch pitch T400, and Dynaflow was 63 and back. IMHO opinion, nailheads are cool as hell. I have a 64 and a 66, both with their original trans. Dynaflows, not so much. Some love 'em. some hate 'em, many fear 'em.

 

the serial number on the block corresponds with 64-66 from the registry? might be a late '63? this engine had the dynaflow bolted up to up.....both were completely rebuilt...albeit years ago and sat in a shop in phoenix, having a shop here in spokane, wa area go through it all to make sure everything is fine before building everything around it and they will paint it black before all the finned goodies go on. in regards to the stator control...is there no way around this? if not i will need to notch my frame to accommodate and all me to get the trans and engine properly set. what connects to the stator as it rocks back and forth around 3/8 of an inch?

 

That valve changes pressure to the convertor to make the vanes move. It is connected to the throttle so that at WOT the lever is moved. It should be spring loaded to keep it in the normal position.

 

the picture i posted is all that i have so if there is spring it is missing.

 

I had one in my 63 and they are otherwise known as the "Dynasour"

 

If there is a spring I would expect it to be inside the valve body, not external. When you move the lever do you feel any spring resistance?

Ray

 

You really need the stator control to give you extra torque multiplication at WOT. Although what I'm reading says it only shifts to high angle at WOT. With a light car it might not be needed, but it would be nice to have. If you aren't going to connect it to the throttle, you could probably cut the end of the shaft off.

You do know that this transmission does not shift. When you put it in drive it is high gear. The torque converter has two turbines and all torque multiplication is done in the convertor. It is kind of like today's CVT's (constantly variable transmissions).

 

A very common, but incorrect belief. All Morgans have steel "z" section frames. The bodies are coach built with a lot of wood and if you look down into an unupholstered one you'll see wood over the frame rail which has led to this misconception.

 

Thanks for the correction, I have read the "ash frame story" several times in the last 55 years.

 

Hi jaracer.....great to see someone from the pacific northwest! From everything i am reading I am just going to notch the frame to gain the needed clearance. The car once completed will weight around 2000 pounds....everything that can be removed has been removed. I am not sure now this is ultimately connected to the throttle so any pictures/guidance on the set up would be great so that i know how much to cut out.

Hi Hnstray.....there is no resistance at all .

 

The engine production code will be stamped on the block just in front of the valley pan, upside down, and on the driver's side. Decoding it will not only give you the year, but the car it was originally installed in. Dynaflow production in US cars ended in 1963. J code is 63, K code is 64, which would have the one year Turbo 400.

 

here is is the following that i found on the engine and trans, with only the heads having a corresponding number. I have taken a tooth brush and cleaned all areas so as to ensure that the numbers i have written down are accurate and that i have not missed anything. Any help in decoding these numbers would be greatly appreciated.

Front of Valley Pan----411005705 there are no letters or anything else. There is however another set of number on the other side as well......4140840

Back by distributor-----1649046-1

Intake-----11859 6

Transmission---Dynaflow in big raised letters 1196118-3

 

In a lot of factory cars the engine is offset to the right is there room to move it over?

 

I used a cable throttle kit, but I'm not sure where I got it; maybe Jegs or Summit. It is a cut to length deal. Works fine.

A buddy of mine built two 51 Riley's. Their frame has an ash insert inside the "C" section of the frame. One is very stock looking with a V6 out of a Thunderbird. The other one was a little more way out there with a Northstar in the rear, parts of a Mercur body, a C10 front section and full fenders with simulated side mounts.

 

after re-looking at the numbers and comparing to the Buick registration for block, intake, heads, etc i have determined it is a 1963 401, hence the Dynaflow trans now makes perfect sense.

 

i elected to notch the frame...simple straight forward.....no issues. Now to figure out the linkage from the stator contrl to the throttle/carb?

 

I've owned two Buicks with switch the pitch, modified 55 and factory 67 340GS both cars in their class were very quick out of the hole. I also had an opportunity to drive a Hollywood Gram with a complete nailhead drive train like yours with switch the pitch, built by the head of the Buick training center, Bill Trevor (in the 60's). That thing came out of the hole like it was shot out of a canon. I think you will get a very big surprise the first time you let out that Morgan. Hope your planning some type of pozy rear end.

 

Hi Flat Roy......i just moved from Buckley to Spokane! Any input/guidance would be greatly appreciated. Frankly, anyone that has experience/knowledge with this engine and Dynaflow trans please let me know. I do have a LSD rear end that has trailing arms, four-linked and gusseted like the be-jeezus along with custom adjustable coil over rear shocks. I am not looking to smoke tires or drag race....as a friend of mine told me many years ago.....you dont have to use all the power all the time!

 

one big question i have is since the total weight of my car is around 2000 lbs....would i even need to have the stator control connected? the original buicks weighed in at over or well over 4000 lbs.

 

[..would i even need to have the stator control connected?
Of course you don't NEED to. BUUUUT what about that occasional need to feel the speed and the thrill of that BIG KICK in the ass you get when you mash it and of course it ONLY works when you mash it, the rest of the time it's putsy putsy.

 

i have been reading that the st400 is a bolt on other than a crank adapter.....anyone have one?