Well, I've addressed this to the "experts" and can't get an answer, so I'm sure someone out there can enlighten me. I'm the proud owner of a '53 Imperial Newport (2drht) with one of the first Powerflite Transmissions offered. This car retains the early (long snout block) which was used on Fluid Drive and Fluid Torque Drive transmissions. The Powerflite appears to be the same as later versions, but on those later versions the snout was removed from the block casting and an intermediate plate stamped "Mohawk" was used. This adapter is much shorter than the long snout. So the question is how did Chrysler acheive this mating which was an extremely short run before modifing the engine block. This is a 66K original car and all works well, but concerns are should the trans fail will I have issues in finding parts to repair it. Thanks in advance for your input.
Wow! You do indeed have a rare Chrysler (or Imperial). My guess is that Chrysler Corp. put a spacer in between the crankshaft and the torque converter (probably to make up for the safety clutch depth) when they bolted the Powerflite to the long snout (extended bell) engines. This spacer thickness is probably the difference of the long snout, vs the MOHAWK PLATE you mentioned. You may want to examine the crankshaft to torque converter/flexplate for a spacer on your car. BTW: I have a 54 Chrysler NYD with the hemi and Powerflite. People have told me that the 54 NYD and Imperials had the short snout, whereas the plain New Yorker still had the long snout. This may or may not be true, but it sure could be. I know my car is an early 54 as it has the GEMMER hydroguide power steering, whereas the late 54's had the new COAXIAL type power steering. So mine may be "long snout" for all I know. I will try and examine mine this weekend and see what I come up with. Will take some pics too. I will also look in my flat rate manual to see if the parts are the same for 53 vs 54 and later. Just for fun: You should try and corral a 56 Imperial with Torqueflite. Years ago I found two of them, and they did indeed have 1 and 2 pushbuttons, along with D, N, R. Hope this helps. Pictures would help too.
@johnl - Sorry that I can't help you with your transmission questions ... but thought our fellow HAMBers would enjoy seeing some pics of the beautiful car in question:
It is my understanding that about the last 1200 Imperials built in '53 came equipped with Powerflites. Because the Newport was a very late edition with 823 built I suspect most came with the PF trans. As I've read by '54 the short snout block was used, so I'm curious to see what you come up with on your car. A friend owned the only Pan America NYer known to exist. This was a '53 car, but has the short snout block with a PF and the unusual disc brakes. Regarding the '56 Imperial with a Torqueflite, I don't have one, but our '56 300B is so equipped. this was a transplant done years prior to me owning the car which is approaching 25 years in my stewardship. About the only advantage I've found between the PF & TF is the ability to use 2nd gear for hold back on hills. Yep, I'm sure I'll get some comments on that one. To qualify my statement I own four PF cars and three TFs.
I have a copy of the original Powerflite demo video. It is 54.3MB so it sure can't get emailed. I will check with my son in law about where I could put it so that you could download it. It even shows an Imperial, probably just like yours. Had a math teacher in high school that had a 52 Saratoga, that had the hemi, but also had a Powerflite in it. He must have done the conversion himself.
I have a copy of the original Powerflite demo video. It is 54.3MB so it sure can't get emailed. I will check with my son in law about where I could put it so that you could download it. It even shows an Imperial, probably just like yours. Had a math teacher in high school that had a 52 Saratoga, that had the hemi, but also had a Powerflite in it. He must have done the conversion himself. The Powerflite demo video sounds really interesting and I'm sure informative. I'd like to get a copy if possibly. You can PM at john@royze.com so we can discuss it. A '52 Saratoga with a Powerflite would be interesting, but I doubt "factory". Would be interesting to see if the engine was original to the car how they adapted the trans.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Wow......this really new info to me. I owned a '51 Chrsyler V8 as far back as 1962 and have had various Hemi powered Chryslers over the years and thought I understood the progression of semi-auto to PF to TF pretty well. Just goes to show you can seldom be sure that everything you think you know is the whole story. But after reading the above posts, and thinking about the mechanics of it, I can see where adapting a PF to a long block hemi wouldn't be all that difficult. Since the main trans case bolts to a bell housing on short block Mopars, it would only require a thin adapter plate to mate the main case to the extended bell block. The later PF & TF bellhousings are tapered from the block face to the trans main case, but the integral extended bell of the '51/'53 blocks could/would serve the same function just as easily. Never thought of that possibilty before. Always believed that semi-automatics were installed as late as early '54.........never dreamed the PF was installed in anything prior to '54. great post!! Ray
Standard NYers were supposed to get the long tail2 bl 331s & the NYer Deluxe/Imperials were to get the new short tail 4 bl engine. Where long tail '54s are rarely found, they might have gone with the 4 bl engine to get sales going on the NYer.
I learned to drive in a Moordoor 53 Desoto with one of these rigs behind a Firedome I think. Loved it. You could use the clutch in all gears ifn you wanted or just put it in drive. But leaving it in drive with your foot on the brake on a hill allowed you to pull away without using the clutch as if you had a full auto. I'd love to use a baby Hemi and fluid drive in a hot rod. Gary
Ray Chrysler used an adapter plate, to adapt the extended bell to the early PF's. My pics show a somewhat thin (1-2' thick) plate that looks like it bolts to the extended bell. But johnl also points out that the bell housing for the non extended bell engines are shorter than the extended bell housing. So my guess is that as you put it the later PF's have the bell that hooks to the engine and the trans bolts to it. You have to remember that the extended bell engines were used with semi-autos for 3 years. I have an early 54 NYD and I need to find out what I have. I will try and take some pics this weekend and post them.
This is what I have been told by numerous hambers. Sure would like to know the methods to adapt the PF to the old extended bell hemis. Did they use a crank spacer to the torque converter and just make the MOHAWK adapter plate for engine to trans connection? Could they have bolted the converter to a flexplate attached directly to the crank, then use a longer hub on the converter, along with a longer drive sleeve? Interesting stuff, think I will get on EBaY and see if there are any PF suppliments for 53 Imperials.
johnl: I looked in my flat rate manual and mine only goes back to 54, so no 53 parts list. Think I will order one for earlier years.
Everyone: I have attached some interesting pics. First is the outside view of the 53 Powerflite on a long tail hemi. (NOTICE THE LONG TAIL ADAPTER PLATE) 2nd is the cross section of that transmission. 3rd is a 56 Powerflite, which is for the short tail engines. If you look closely at the cross sections, it looks like Chrysler designed the original Powerflite main unit around using the long tail and ADAPTER plate. Then when they went to the short tail engines they simply made a bell housing to fit the new engines. No spacer in between crank and converter/flexplate. Also observe the two cross sections of the converters. The older version (up to late 54) was a 2 stator unit, after that it was a 1 stator unit. johnl: to answer your original question about replacement parts for your 53 Powerflite here are my thoughts: ADAPTER plate -- 53 and probably very early 54. This is rare so you don't want to mess this up. Same goes for the converter. The transmission case is only for 53 and 54 years. 55 Chrysler went to the lever on the dash, then 56 went to pushbuttons. Probably 55 used a cable like 56 up does, so the case will not work for you (unless you want pushbuttons or the lever). Other than that, the internals are pretty much the same across the board. Hope this answers some of your questions.
I respectfully disagree.....the OP's post refers to the "Mohawk" plate being used with the shorter block, not the extended bell block. I am familiar with the "intermediate plate" used on all short block Chrysler, DeSoto & Dodge engines equipped with PF or TF transmissions. It's primary purpose appears to be to allow for a larger diameter bellhousing for auto trans' than the stock block radius provides for as well as a place to bolt a starter. I have had several PF's and a couple of TF's from the '54 thru '57 models and those transmissions have three piece cases. There is a tail housing, main case and detachable bell housing. Using one of these transmissions with an extended bell block would be virtually identical to what was done by GM on '49/'55 caddy & '49/'64 Olds with Hydramatics. The Olds & Cad blocks had integral partial bellhousings like the early Chrysler Hemis. In the GM instance, there was a sort of partial bellhousing that bolted to the front of the Hydramatic main case and then to the block's integral bell. I am saying that same design concept would have allowed a PF or TF to be attached to an extended bell Mopar block in the same fashion and would NOT, in my opinion, require any crankshaft extension. There is no reason I can think of that would require a crank extension as the torque converter could bolt directly to the crank flange as it does on later models. The only issue would be the difference, if any, between the length of the Mopar extended bell and the later short block with seperate bellhousing used on the PF & TF boxes. Now, although I am fairly conversant with both the semi automatics used by Mopar in various forms and the early PF & TF autoboxes, I have NOT seen this particular setup and I readily concede that I am speculating here on how it could have been, or perhaps was, accomplished. Ray EDIT: While I was busy typing this response you posted the pics........I am pleased to see my theory was essetially correct.
Ray: I stand corrected. Yes the Mohawk plate is like you say, I thought that mini bell between the trans and the extended bell was the Mohawk. Nope just an adapter to mate trans to block. As I mentioned in my last post, Chrysler must have designed the PF with this shorty adapter in mind. Then just converted the shorty adapter to a typical bell housing. In this case no spacer was needed for the crank. I am very familiar with the Olds, Cadillac extended blocks and the shorty adapter between block and hydro. Packard did the same thing with their V8, and to an extent the Nailheads were like that. I know one thing, it sure made a convenient stand for working on those Olds and Cad engines, since you could just place the back end on the ground.
This site and you guys are a "wealth of knowledge". As stated in my original post I went to the top at Chrysler Historical and so far nothing back. My other source was a long time transmission guy familar with Chrysler applications and that also drew a total "blank". At the suggestion of my long time friend, Wayne Graefen, I posted here and look at the results !! A couple of other comments regarding some of the previous post on this thread. I think that a '55 Powerflite probably has the same linkage as the '53-'54 examples. the only difference is the shifter exits the dash instead of being on the steering column. If I've miss something please correct me. I was under the impression that all of the '53 331 Hemi's used on Chrysler were a 2 barrel carb and in 1954 all went to the 4 barrel. HP rating for '53 was 180 and in '54 it jumped to 195 with an option of 235. The increase to 235 over 195 in '54 is somewhat of a mystery to me. I understand that cylinder heads were improved for '54, but what else changed?
You may be correct on the 55 linkage. I need to look at that. 54 New Yorkers had 2BBL carbs IIRC. Only the deluxes (and Imperials) had the 4bbl 235hp.
54 New Yorkers had 2BBL carbs IIRC. Only the deluxes (and Imperials) had the 4bbl 235hp. This may be the case but every '54 NYer and Imperial I've seen has been equipped with a 4 barrel. Regarding the Imperials for '54 I've seen a couple, almost purchased one sedan that was badged as 235hp in gold. So were Imperials available both ways? '54 also was the beginning of dual exhaust, yet my June 1953 built Imperial Newport has duals and yes they are factory. So does this indicate mine is not 180hp, but could be a 195hp example.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Hmmm. You sure they were only New Yorkers and not New Yorker Deluxes? Imperials were always top of the line, meaning 4bbl 235hp. Yours might make 195hp, but dual exhaust only would not produce that much more power. 5hp maybe. The way Chrysler did things back then, they might have gotten a jump start on the new head design when your 53 was put together. This has been a good story.
All regular production 51-3 were 2 bl. I've heard the 51-3s actually made 200 HP, but that was huge back in '51 & Chrysler though that high a rating would scare off the elderly, who were the main buyers of the Chrysler brand cars. The '54s had bigger ports than the 51-3s with oval ex ports vs the earlier round ports. The early heads use short reach plugs & the oval ex heads use long reach. The higher HP readings were probably from getting the 4 bl carb, so...better flow & more carburation in '54.
---------------- I think a lot of people would be interested in seeing this video. Would it be possible to upload the video to YouTube? Once it was up on Youtube, it'd be a simple matter post the link, or better yet, embed it in a post here. Mart3406 =======================
Some very late '53 Chrysler NYers started getting the '54 larger port heads. I had a '53 that was 6th car from end of production. It was Powerflite and large port.
Hmmm. You sure they were only New Yorkers and not New Yorker Deluxes? Imperials were always top of the line, meaning 4bbl 235hp. Yours might make 195hp, but dual exhaust only would not produce that much more power. 5hp maybe. The way Chrysler did things back then, they might have gotten a jump start on the new head design when your 53 was put together. This has been a good story Looks like I've learned something on the carb issue. Next time I see any '54 I'll look closer. I knew the heads were improved and agre that dual exhaust would add little in the HP department. I also suspect my '53 Newport was a very early production change on the exhaust just as the trans was.
Johnl: If I had to change one thing on my 54 it would be the instrument panel. Your Imperial IIRC still has the full gauge package, mine only have fuel, temp, and speedo. Oil and amps are idiot light, which I don't care for. It sure would look good with the 53 panel, but then it would be incorrect for 54. Guess I can just put oil and amps under the dash somewhere.
To me the '53 dash was the best of the era. Prior to this the verticle slats on the dash face were "unfriendly". '54 was not bad, but got a bit "busy" and yes I've heard the idiot light issue before. I feel that the 1954 Chrysler vehicles were the last great cars the company made. '55 & '56 were good, but the quality dropped some and by '57 they hit rock bottom. Now I own examples of all of the later years mentioned and like them, but there is definately a "build quality" difference.
I have some of the same questions. also some info. I have a 331, "C300" 3NE55 and 392, NE57 with short bell housings. The top bolt is dead center and the top 5 bolts match up with LA(small block mopar) torqueflight. Starter, pins and the rest do not. My 331, C542-8-38** W/1954 Powerflite from a Newyorker clip(in avatar) has extended bell housing. it has equily spaced bolts in a circular pattern. no bolt top center. the 55 engine came with a Centr-O-Cast adaptor plate. I got a Mohawk plate on Ebay for cheap thinking it was what i had used in the past. these two adapter plates are identical, except for the markings(words n numbers). They mount to the short bell housing. they do not mount to the Powerflite or LA, B, RB Torqueflights. there must be some 55-58 transmissions with a different bolt pattern. If you have one, let me know before i call Wilcap. Hope this helps. I wanted to post pictures, but photobucket closed cause of 4 months inactive. if anyone wants pix. let me know, C300
There was another intermediate transmission, the Fluid Torque Drive. This was the M6 trans with torque converter instead of fluid drive unit. It had to have a separate oil supply for the torque converter. Optional from 51 or 52 on. So, they already had the torque converter before the Powerflite came along. First Hemi 331 was 180 HP 2 barrel carb. I believe this was increased to 195in 1953 thanks to an increase in compression ratio. The 235HP was the 195HP engine with a 4 barrel carb. 1953 New Yorker came with the 195HP engine, New Yorker Deluxe got the 235HP. I should think the 4 barrel engine could be ordered on the usual optional at extra cost basis in any V8 equipped Chrysler, such as Saratoga, New Yorker or T&C station wagon.
Correction: 1951 through 1953 331ci Chrysler Hemi engines were 180hp. In 1954 the 2 barrel version was rated at 195hp and the 4 barrel was 235hp. By 1955 they were all 4 barrels and were rated at 250hp with the exception of the C300 (Letter Car) that had (2) 4 barrels, solid lifters and was rated at 300hp. In 1956 the engine was increased to 354ci and 1957 & 1958 were 392ci. This was the end of the run for the first generation of Chrysler brand Hemi engines.
The Jalopy Journal
