So I starting thinking (yeah, not a good thing to do) the other day about the old Hydramatics. First let me be clear that I am not trying to start any crap. I think the Hydros were the first truly successful automatic trans. In saying that I mean it was a tough trans used in a few applications including some trucks, as compared to some of the other automatic offerings of the time. It seems to me that alot of older vehicles were parked due to faulty transmissions, worn out engines or just plain not needed for family use any more. I wonder if the hydros were any reason for parking those cars in the day? I'm sure there was some failure rate, as with anything - somebody will find a way to wreck something if they try hard enough. What was the reality of these in their time?
They were tough buggers and IMO they only went away because automatic technology advanced to lighter, smaller transmissions. I don't remember many hydromatic failures back in the day, and some of them went behind serious hp motors. Not having a park position didn't help either. The funny thing is, most cars that were junked or parked back then were still running pretty well. People just got tired of that one and cars were cheap, so they got a newer one and parked the old one. I bought many cars from junkyards for $25-$50 that ran like a clock and were still in good condition. I knew a guy who would buy a car from a junkyard and then drive it into the ground, then he would call the junkyard to pick it up, and ride with them to the yard. There he would pick out a new one and continue the cycle. The junkyard was his used car lot. Don
Welp, I grenaded the hydro in my parent's 55 olds super 88 doing neutral drops. My dad pulled the trans and tore it all apart...found a piece of broken/worn snap ring and couldn't figure out where it came from. We went to the junk yard and bought a good used one for $25. I ended up buying the car about 2 years later and beat on it some more. When it began to slip going into 3rd gear, I traded it in for a 57 Pontiac with a manual tranny.[it broke trannys AND clutches!] My buddy, Glen and I went in together on a 55 Pontiac with a bad trans. We swapped it out for a used one [again, from the junk yard for $25] and the old 287 didn't have enough power to break that tranny. I ran one in my 56 Pontiac in the 80s behind a healthy 389. It'd blow the tires off going to 2nd gear but eventually began to slip a bit going into 3rd. They were pretty good for the times when you consider the alternative trans available...I mean, iron powerglides [we called 'em peanut butter drive], 2 speed ford automatics and mopar fluid drives not to mention the junk Olds/Pontiac slim jim trannys. We were so used to replacing those light duty chevy and ford 3 speed manual trans on a weekly basis, we didn't mind replacing the slant-pan hydros every 9 months or a year.... ya had to be there.
Having owned a couple of '52-'54 Lincolns, & having been around a '56(?) GMC Pickup as well as several other Hydramatic-equipped cars/trucks of the era, I would answer that most of the failures were due to lack of proper maintenance, especially checking the fluid level, rather than any fault of the transmission. Look at the abuse given to the (almost mandatory equipment during the "gasser wars") B&M Hydro-equipped drag cars of the '60s & how well they held-up. (To say nothing of the abuse suffered in commercial & military vehicles of the same time period!)
i can dig it. i had a '56 olds 98, and they came with the "jetaway" 3-speed, which i thought was a pos. the 88 came with the 4-speed hydro, a better trans which was "outdated" due to the lack of a "P"
Surely you guys know the early hydros had "Park"....just not marked as such. When the engine was off, the trans in "Reverse", the tranny was locked in "Park". The GM Hydramatic was, without question, the premier automatic of the '40s and '50s..........and it's grandson, the TH400 was it's worthy successor. Ray
All the original cars I had suffered from engine failure, either smoked or rods. I would get them running, but most had sat for 20 years or more , and at that point the seals in the tranny had dried up,and the trans failed. I still don't trust a 50's automatic because of that. Not a fault of the trans per set,but they usually cost more to rebuild than I paid for the car and engine. Now its sticks, or late 60's or newer automatics.
I always liked the GM hydros myself. I used to take one of my dad's friend's 1961 Pontiac in for service, couldn't even detect the gear changes, it was that smooth. The ones in my 1962 & 1964 Oldsmobiles were good too. Another thing that killed them off was the reverse being all the way down. Starting in 1966, there had to be a neutral position between the D and R ranges.
I'm still waving the Hydro flag. Have two solid ones in the garage and a third one for parts. My 34 is getting a Hydro behind the Olds. Like with anything, and as @drtrcrV-8 said, lack of regular maintenance plays a large part in things not working right. I think you're overthinking the reason that old cars got parked.
LOL, it took fluid pressure to lift the parking pawl. so when the engine wasn't running there was no fluid pressure and the pawl fell into place. it is funny how little is known about one of the finest racing/street automatics ever built. Why did hydros go by the wayside? Someone mentioned better technology and weight. well the hydro was simple and it worked so better tech was easy, or at least different more complicated tech. I think the biggest killer for the hydro was the same thing that killed the iron power slip, weight. I got a B&M in the garage as we speak and it weights 180 if it weights an ounce. Old cars got parked more often then not because they got replaced. A lot of the people that owned those late '40s and '50s cars had come through the Great Depression think the recession of '08 on steroids if you are not aware of the Great Depression. They didn't throw things away because they might need them again someday, so they parked 'em, because you just never know when you're gonna need it again.
I was working in a wrecking yard in the late 50's. I pulled half a dozen hydros out of cars trying to find a good one for my '40 Ford/Olds. Never did find a good one. I doubt most people did any maintenance on them in those days and there weren't that many GOOD automatic trans shops. Cheaper to junk the car as the engines were tired at 50,000 anyway.
By 1965 there was a move towards thinner cast engine blocks and transmissions made from aluminum, an easier process over cast iron. The aluminum Powerglide was easily 1/2 the weight of the iron ones.
Great trans,,I put 160 K miles on mine in my 55 Olds, and it still works, everything else is worn out! You do know that Rolls Royce bought the right to it after GM stopped using it?
Well the slant pan had several places to leak. They say gaskets do wonders for that. Someone did mention lack of proper maintenance earlier I think.
I pulled mine from a 30 year storage and blamed that for it. I sold the car before I got around to resealing it. The trans still worked like a charm though.
I had "beefed" cast iron hydros in several cars way back when and none of them leaked or failed. I seem to remember reading in the old Motor's Manual that they needed band adjustments every so many miles, I never touched mine and I'm sure most owners didn't do any maintenance. I have a B&M unit in the shop and I may use it behind my 324 Olds for my '33 pu if I can find the correct torus cover and wheels. They may be heavy and outdated but they are still a great old trans. As to what killed old cars, I have also read in 1950s magazines that when OHV engines came out the manufacturers had a string of cam failures and poor ring life leading to a lot of early repairs. As someone stated, many just wanted to step up to a better car and probably didn't want to repair the old one when faced with an expensive rebuild.
Yes, engine life, as measured in odometer miles, was much shorter in those days. Given the rear axle ratios of the period 3.70 up through 4.10 were very common, combined with basic oils and few full flow filters, engines commonly needed rings and bearings at 50,000 miles. I was around in those days ('50s) and clearly recall the large number of 'shop overhauls' done routinely. And, this had been going on for decades before I graced the scene. A Chevy or Plymouth six could be in at 8:00 am, pulled the head and pan, pulled the rods and pistons, re-ring job, valve job, new rods (babbited Chevy) or inserts, and buttoned up and out the door by 5:00. If more was required, make it two days. However, when more was required, it often meant one of many exchange rebuilds on the market. Everybody and his brother had exchange remans....Sears, Wards, Ford dealers, Jasper, etc., etc.. I remember this being done to cars that were 4 to 5 years olds, not ready for the scrap heap just because the engine was tired......a few years more age though, and the economics changed quickly. Unless the owner did a 'shade tree' engine exchange over the weekend, and lots of those were done too. I think some of the 'heavies' of the day, Buicks, Packards and 'off brand' cars, Nash, for example, got scrapped sooner because either the repairs were more costly and/or the cars were not as valuable to justify spending the money. I think the above pretty much applies to transmissions as well. Ray
I know one thing that would destroy Hydramatics was towing a dead car on its wheels. The Hydramatic had a front fluid pump driven off the engine and a rear one driven off the output shaft. The rear pump alone didn't move enough fluid through the transmission and if you towed the car a long distance without disconnecting the driveshaft it would ruin the transmission. One neat feature of Hydramatics is that they "lock up" in 4th gear. If you study the power flow diagrams in the service manual, you can see that the fluid torus is bypassed when the transmission is in high gear so there is no slippage. Pretty neat, considering they figured this out in ~1949 or whatever.
The very first Hydramatics had a reputation for failing, but any faults were quickly remedied. I know a lot of people in the fifties and sixties avoided automatics because they did not want to risk a big repair bill, but the truth is, by that time automatics were more reliable, and required less repairs, than manual transmissions and clutches. The big problem was, if the tranny gagged it was very expensive to fix. So if they did break down they usually got scrapped because it was just an old car, not worth spending a lot of money on. In those days you could buy a half decent car for $50, $100 and up. No vehicle inspection, no sales tax, no mandatory insurance, if it had plates on it, just transfer the ownership and away we go.
When I got my glasspacks on I drove it like a stick just to hear it rap between Low Super & Drive. Lasted quite awhile to. Always thought that Powerglides were just junk and they ended up in quite a few rails.
I've owned 2 61 Olds with Slim Jims, the Starfire had a bad pump, you would have the let it shift down coming to a light or you would be stuck until it pumped up. It would smoke the 15" Buick road wheels out of the hole then fall on its face when it shifted to high. My 2 door sedan worked and shifted right out of a 20 nap but was very "soft". I was thinking about the notoriety of the Rocket V8 and wondered what would happen if you put a "good" transmission behind one. So that's what I'm going to find out real soon. My 61 Olds 394 (62 Starfire engine) on steroids, Muncie 4 speed, Gear Vendors OD is almost ready for the road. Although not a totally HAMB friendly build, it's pretty close. It should be interesting to unleash the full potential of a 394 and see what happens. I know of its shortcomings but I believe with my 4.15 bore and my 3.68 stroke it should be a good balance for the street. I have 2- 65 ' Turbo 400's are they just as good as the later ones?
Yes, my mom had a '64 Catalina, when you wanted to back up, you looked over your shoulder and THEN pulled the lever all the way to the right without looking, you always were in reverse, ready to go! That way seems safer in some ways, but DOT had to make 'em all the same, so the majority ruled.
It's always interesting to me how the term "hydro" usually morphs into a thread like this. There are actually three different trans designs being discussed here. Early dual range hydro (the one that was modified by B&M and others), the dual coupling (jetaway / super hydro) trans which was also a four speed unit but could not be easily modified for performance purposes and also had a "park detent".....not necessarily a bad trans, and finally the infamous roto-hydramatic or slim jim which were pretty much a design disaster. All very different designs!
The Jalopy Journal
