My '53 Cadillac has the DynaFlow tranny. I've heard some good remarks about the hydros. How do the dynaflows compare?
Generally : NO comparison. The old Hydro was stout, efficient, a good performer. The dynaflow was all slip and no go. Your Caddy has the Dynaflow because of the Fire at the Hydramatic factory in Livonia in 1953. The bigger lines like Cad & Olds substituted Dynaflow while Pontia got the Powerglide.
About the only good thing about Dynaflow in your Cadillac is that it is an oddity and could be worth more money. As far as the comparison, night and day, bad vs good. Curious about something, does your Cadillac have an indicator for the transmission ranges? I have seen Olds and Cads with Dynaflow and all they did was block out the hydramatic shift indicator. Got pictures of the shift indicator, would like to see it.
Thanks for the info. I knew about the fire. I had been told that the DynaFlows weren't much for a hotrod transmission. Mine doesn't have the shift indicator because it's not in the car it came out of. Sorry. As far as it being worth something, I'm working on getting a transmission to replace it and if I do, it will certainly be available, if you know anyone who'd like to have it. Thanks again.
Dynaflows are just what the name implies, they "dynamically flowed" fluid all over the garage floor! LOL! Seriously, Buick had some good ideas, such as Nailhead engine, even the switch pitch feature in their converters, but to depend on a torque converter by itself to make a heavy car accelerate and be efficient wasn't to be realized. Their only solution to moving the car better was more power out of the nailhead. But the trans was sure smooooth!
Thanks. The engine and tranny are in the roadster pictured to the left. They were taken out of a Cadillac by a neighbor who put his race car engine in it instead. I've got an Olds bell housing and 4 speed in the works, looking for the right flywheel, so probably will be pulling out the DF. Will certainly keep all the parts together and would happily pass it along to a good home if somebody wanted it. Thanks for all the advice.
So what you are saying is that where the NDSLR indicator is suppose to be there is a PNDLR in its place? Hmmm, wonder if they used the hydro neutral safety/backup light/ quadrant indicator switch for the FLOW. This might mean that you can start the car in PARK but not NEUTRAL. The backup lights would work as usual as both had R at Rightmost. Sure would like to see a pic of that quandrant indicator. Also heard that using the FLOWS as you mentioned, starting in Lo then shifting to Dr is hard on the band anchor. I would think it would be ok on upshift, but harder on downshifts.
Great! Hmmm, thinking of something a little less than that. Perhaps: smooth, gas guzzling, lack of response, torque tube drive(which makes it a mess to convert for newer transmission)and if you count the triple turbine fiasco, how about the 86 million Buick spent trying to get it right (can you say early day bailout) etc, etc. A few good things to remember: No governor, no vacuum modulator, very few parts to go bad.
Its no racing trans, but smooth acceleration it is, I,ve had a 59 electra deuce and a quarter rag top for 20 years and never had a problem.... btw, I love the Hydromatic as well...........and the glide
You probably had the triple turbine Dynaflow in your Electra 225. (PRNDG) The triple turbine trans was a little better on acceleration )compared to variable pitch dynaflow (PNDLR) due to two turbine reduction phases, along with direct drive phase. Some of the Buick club guys say that when the triple turbine is tuned properly it isn't bad on take off, but nowhere as peppie as hydramatics.
The Jalopy Journal
