New Veriable Speed transmission

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:08:29 -0400, "Dave Gower"
> wrote:

>Based on my test drive, I think they're the wave of the future if they prove
>reliable, which I think is likely because they're basically very simple. And
>if you look at their cost as an option in the Caliber and Compass, they're
>about the same price as the regular 4-speed Chrysler automatic. <snip>

GM opined that they were superior in the mid 30s. It's just that they
didn't bother with R&D, preferring to let the Euros do all the work.

CVTs will replace step gear hydraulic transmission in three years.
Main reason: cheaper to build.

"Dave Gower" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Itsfrom Click" > wrote
>
>>....DAFs were small, light cars and
>> in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
>> remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
>> belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
>> of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements.
>
> The other significant thing was thatDAFs were Dutch. Holland has virtually
> no hills, which was crucial to the success of these early CVTs, since they
> would soon burn out otherwise.
>
> I recently test drove a CVT Caliber, and am looking seriously at a CVT
> Compass as a replacement for my Focus. I really liked the CVT on the
> Caliber. Some people say they feel sluggush, but that's just an illusion
> caused by the lack of any shifts. In fact they go like stink because the
> engine gets up on the cam and stays there, pumping out max hp in a steady
> stream.
>
I agree - They lack perceived acceleration, but not the real thing.

I guess everybody knows how they're made. They use a metal chain-like belt
that can have toothed sides that can hook into teeth on the sides of the
pulleys. They metal belt doesn't slip (that's not what this is for) but
rather it is always running on the two pulleys. The pulley adjustment is
just like you'd imagine from looking at a golf cart. The pulleys are coned
and the two sides just squeeze in and out. No real change there.

In article >,
"Dave Gower" > wrote:

> Based on my test drive, I think they're the wave of the future if they prove
> reliable, which I think is likely because they're basically very simple. And
> if you look at their cost as an option in the Caliber and Compass, they're
> about the same price as the regular 4-speed Chrysler automatic.
They definitely will take over the automatic market, but they should be
lower cost than the geared 5/6sp automatics.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:14:27 -0700, DeserTBoB >
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:43:07 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>One of the reasons Volvo bought Dutch car maker DAF (gosh, was it the
>>late 60s, or 70s) was to control DAF's patents on the CVT they had been
>>using with success for some years......DAFs were small, light cars and
>>in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
>>remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
>>belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
>>of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements. <snip>
>
>GM had prototype CVTs in the 1930s, but didn't want to waste any more
>R&D money after their successful launch of the four speed HydraMatic
>in 1938.
>>
>>DAFs were rebadged as little Volvos, but don't think any were sent to
>>the US.<snip>
>
>I have seen some DAFs on US soil, mostly back in the '60s. Parts and
>service were impossible, as they were for Saabs in those days. No
>marketing of DAFs in the US ever took place, scared off by a
>then-strong VW.
>
>>Have never heard of any problems with modern units, although I can
>>certainly remember the uneasy feeling of driving in early 60s Buicks
>>with Super Turbine Drive.......waiting for them to shift (course, they
>>never did). Guess you get used to it quick enough. <snip>
>
>The problem with GM's hydrokinetic transmissions, notably from Buick
>Division, was their horrible efficiency. GM didn't think this was a
>problem, and the Buick Division president was quoted, after his 1958
>Buick Super came in dead last in the '58 Mobile Economy Run,
>"Well...we have to keep our friends at the oil companies happy!"
>
>Several other inefficient hydrokinetic examples from GM filled the
>market, from Allison's bus V-drive bus transmission in 1938 to
>everything from Buick, Chevy's cheaply designed Powerglide and more
>inefficient and unreliable Turboglide, and the Detroit Transmission 2
>speed with "switch pitch" converter, the 275, found in many GM
>intermediates of the 1960s. Odd, since they had the most efficient
>automatic transmission on the market for years with the HydraMatic.
>Even the 1956 Dual Coupling aluminum case version was more efficient
>than any of GM's horrible hydrokinetic models, including the vaunted
>THM 400 and what came later.
>>
>>Don't confuse Honda's CVCC Civic with CVT (wasn't it Compound Vortex
>>Combustion Chamber or similar). <snip>
>
>Exactly...which was a patentable name for a stratfied charge engine. I
>still drive one!
>
>> early Euro automatics: Jos Lucas (The Prince of Darkness) had a
>>magnetic transmission: somehow it shifted by applying electric current
>>to different points in a tranny filled with some kind of ferrous powder
>>which solidified when the juice was applied .....geees, does't that
>>sound like a British idea? <snip>
>
>OH yes, it does...and so very typically Lucas!
>
>>I think the first successful automatic sold
>>in great numbers in Europe was the Warner Gear (Jaguar and many others) <snip>
>
>Jag used a licensed version of GM's HydraMatic back in the '50s, as
>did Leyland's truck and bus division, for years. The B-W automatic of
>Euro design came a bit later. B-W already was happy with their
>royalties from Ford for their MX (Fordomatic) and, after AMC's
>contract for HydraMatics expired in '57, supplied AMC for all
>automatics until they decided to exit the business, forcing AMC to go
>to Chrysler for Torqueflites.
>
>>Didn't Citroen (sp?) have something called Citromatic.<snip>
>
>Yes...and, being French in design, it was as bad as Packard's
>Ultramatic.
>
>>Hope DAF didn't called
>>their's DAFamatic......that would be right up there with Dodge
>>Gyromatic. <snip>
>
>Those truck badges on early '50s Dodges always looked like "Gynomatic"
>to me, but I was too young to understand the implications.
>
>>Yeah - a boring Sunday morning with nothing better to do! <snip>
>
>Yes, all the Sunday morning political shows are done. Even Robert
>Novak concedes the Republipedoes are OUT!

Gotta disagree with some of your comments:

DAF's were marketed inthe USA, at least here in New England. I saw
several DAF dealers here in Connecticut and the USA headquarters for
SAAB was in New Haven, CT from their start of U.S. marketing around
1955 up until around 1995 when SAAB USA moved to Atlanta.

Perhaps becasue of their local marketing, parts and service for both
DAF and SAAB were plentiful, at least here in Connecticut. I drove two
of the 3 cylinder 2 cycle SAABS back in the 60's and 70's - great
cars, if you didn't mind the lack of engine braking while in free
wheeling mode. The free-wheeling saved the 2-cycle engine from oil
starvation under low throttle high torque conditions (decelerating
down a hill, for example). Just had to throw in one can of SAAB
premium "M" oil with each 7 to 8 gallons of fuel.

Two friends of mine had DAF Dafodils - they were fairly reliable cars
albeit a bit "funky". New England doesn't have much flat land. The
hills around here didn't seem to destroy those CVT transmissions.
Periodic belt replacement was all that was necessary.

I later had two Packards with Ultramatic drive - both were reliable
transmissions. The 1953 Packard had the original Ultramatic, while my
1955 Packard had the Twin-Ultramatic. Both were advanced transmissions
for their day that included, among other features, lock up torque
converters. Packard was the ONLY U.S. independant automaker to ever
build its own automatic transmissions.

The EARLY 1955 Twin-Ultramatics did have main shaft bearing problems
that wore excessively and destroyed seals. Packard rapidly fixed the
problem but it did damage their reputation. The 1956 "senior"
Packards such as the Patricians did have a push buttom servo
controlled transmission shifter that caused problems but, properly
speaking, that wasn't due to the transmission.

I always thought that the Borg-Warner automatics as used by Studebaker
and American Motors (and in some Jeep products before the Chrysler
takeover) were bullet proof .

I owned a 1971 Avanti II (the Studebaker designed sports car) that
while it had the Corvette LT1 engine installed by the factory, it
still used the Studebaker Borg-Warner automatic. The engine was tuned
to 300 HP and I ran the car to 155,000 with NO transmission problems.

I also had a 1962 Rambler that I later sold to a neighbor. He ran the
car to 200,000 miles with one engine rebuild and NO rebuilds to the
Borg-Warner automatic. Rambler called it "Flash-O-Matic" (GRIN).

Independant transmission shops always bad-mouthed the Borg-Warner
automatic, in part because they didn't have the knowledge or the skill
level to do successful rebuilds. They didn't see as many and didn't
have the training or the tools.

Doug

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:37:04 GMT, Doug >
wrote:

>Gotta disagree with some of your comments:
>
>DAF's were marketed inthe USA, at least here in New England. I saw
>several DAF dealers here in Connecticut and the USA headquarters for
>SAAB was in New Haven, CT from their start of U.S. marketing around
>1955 up until around 1995 when SAAB USA moved to Atlanta. <snip>

Thus, they were regionally marketed. DAF sales/service were
non-existant on the West Coast, and Saab was extremely spotty. I do
remember when the V4s came out, and there was a dealer in LA selling
them, but again, service and parts were a real bear. Once Saab's
dealership network started to expand, they sold more V4s. The 2
strokes, although I do remember them in that era, were very, very
rare. More common was the drool from the original Subarus, which were
2 strokes. The "Subes" were heavily marketed on the West Coast
starting around 1969 as competition for VW's "bug," but VW had come
out with the new, popular squareback and notchback 1500 Varient
models, with which Sube couldn't compete.

>Two friends of mine had DAF Dafodils - they were fairly reliable cars
>albeit a bit "funky". New England doesn't have much flat land. The
>hills around here didn't seem to destroy those CVT transmissions.
>Periodic belt replacement was all that was necessary. <snip>

They probably migrated westward, were seen for a short time, and
disappeared.

>I later had two Packards with Ultramatic drive - both were reliable
>transmissions. The 1953 Packard had the original Ultramatic, while my
>1955 Packard had the Twin-Ultramatic. Both were advanced transmissions
>for their day that included, among other features, lock up torque
>converters. Packard was the ONLY U.S. independant automaker to ever
>build its own automatic transmissions. <snip>

The problem with the Ultramatic was that John De Lorean's team
decided, for some odd reason, that they'd seal up the torque converter
shell with a bronze sleeve bushing with NO seal and NO oil rifling. As
mileage would pile up, the bushing would wear, line oil pressure would
decrease, and the transmission would self-destruct due to lack of lube
oil. With the straight 8s, this bushing didn't wear all that fast
because of lower TC temperatures and pressures, but when handling the
torque of the V8s starting in '55, it became a real nasty problem.

The first use of a torque converter clutch was in the Allison V-drive
bus transmission from GM in 1938. I'm convinced that De Lorean got
his ideas for the Ultramatic from that particular transmission...four
element torque converter (the bus trans had five), torque conveter
clutch to direct drive...same stuff in a much smaller package. It was
the Ultramatic project that made De Lorean attractive to GM, and he
left Packard before things started to cave in, including all the
service problems with his Ultramatic.

There is a shop out here in LA, Reseda Transmission, that knows the
Ultramatic very well, and he rebuilds them with a proper oil seal on
the torque converter shell bushing and with slotting on the bushing
itself to promote better lubrication, and they last well enough.
Still, they're "slushboxes," and do not get much power to the rear
wheels, especially at low speeds or heavy loads. What sells a lot
better for him is a THM700R4 conversion kit he sells to adapt the
Packard straight 8s and V8s to the moderm GM transmission. He has a
'56 Patrician so equipped, and the performance AND economy are
somewhat startling. Driving his Patrician and then driving a 374"
equipped '56 with the slushbox is the difference between driving a
Buick GS and a '48 Super with Dynaflow. The Packard V8, while having
oil pump and a few other teething problems, was a well designed
package, many parts of which popped up in Chrysler "A" engines later,
after Chrysler bought the near-new Packard engine plant from
Studebaker. Stude had already bet their money on their 289 and
thought the Packard V8 too big to fit their product line, probably not
a very good decision.

>The EARLY 1955 Twin-Ultramatics did have main shaft bearing problems
>that wore excessively and destroyed seals. Packard rapidly fixed the
>problem but it did damage their reputation. The 1956 "senior"
>Packards such as the Patricians did have a push buttom servo
>controlled transmission shifter that caused problems but, properly
>speaking, that wasn't due to the transmission. <snip>

That was a Ford/Autolite mess that was unwittingly "road tested" by
Packard for Ford. You'll remember the electric punch button setups
for the Ford MX transmission in the '57-'58 Mercs and the '58
Edsels...that was the same basic package, WITHOUT the problem that led
to many '56 Packards going into park at road speed. For some reason,
Autolite had designed the serve package so that when battery was
removed, it went into park, regardless of vehicle motion...a design
screw-up that cost Packard dearly in its last year.

The die was already cast, though, as Nance had already negotiated the
sale of Packard to Studebaker at the end of the '55 model year, when
it became obvious that Packard didn't have the capital or design
talent to keep up with their traditional competition, Cadillac. Even
the very clever "refreshening" of the '51 body by talented stylist
Dick Teague (the '55-'56 Packards weren't "new" bodies at all...just
new sheet metal) couldn't save Packard against Harley Earle's P38
treatment of Cadillac's '48-'56 styling, and the Ultramatic, as well
as warped oil pump bodies, finished off Packard's reputation for
quality forever. As if a concession, '56 Cadillacs were also
"lemons," with some of Cadillac Division's biggest design gaffes of
all time. Failures on the road of '56 Cads were the stuff of legend,
as they were on '56 Packards.

>I always thought that the Borg-Warner automatics as used by Studebaker
>and American Motors (and in some Jeep products before the Chrysler
>takeover) were bullet proof . <snip>

B-Ws were tough boxes. They just didn't evolve much past the early
'50s control-wise...lack of partial throttle downshift, clunky shift
"feel," etc. But they were good, solid transmissions that rarely gave
trouble. AMC's moving to the Torqueflites after B-W exited the
business in the US was an improvement for AMC, though, and it started
AMC down the road to acquisition by Chrysler. The AMC/Chrysler merger
was something Iacocca had wanted from Day 1, but was afraid that
anti-trust litigation would quash it. His idea later became reality
after the Reaganites neutered anti-trust enforcement and the FTC. It
was pretty apparent by '86, though, that AMC would fail like Chrysler
almost did in the late '70s, so the FTC, after token investigations,
allowed the merger.

>I owned a 1971 Avanti II (the Studebaker designed sports car) that
>while it had the Corvette LT1 engine installed by the factory, it
>still used the Studebaker Borg-Warner automatic. The engine was tuned
>to 300 HP and I ran the car to 155,000 with NO transmission problems. <snip>

B-W was also used in Checkers when they had Continental 6s as their
power, and they were famous for NEVER needing rebuilds, even with
abusive and harsh taxi cab service and non-existant maintenance.
>
>I also had a 1962 Rambler that I later sold to a neighbor. He ran the
>car to 200,000 miles with one engine rebuild and NO rebuilds to the
>Borg-Warner automatic. Rambler called it "Flash-O-Matic" (GRIN).

Stude called it something else, I cannot recall. Later versions of
the B-W had a feature later stolen by Ford that allowed 2nd gear
starts, only important in the North and New England, where ice was a
continual problem. Ford saw value in this feature and added it into
their FMX redo of the original B-W designed three band Fordomatic (MX)
and retained it in the first few years of the C4 and C6 tranmissions,
later going to 'SelectShift" with a manual selection of 1 or 2 at any
time...supposedly. Both the C4 and C6 designed borrowed heavily on
the A-727 and A-904 Torqueflite design, and Ford paid Chrysler
up-front fees for parts of their design. The orignal, however, was
and is still better.
>
>Independant transmission shops always bad-mouthed the Borg-Warner
>automatic, in part because they didn't have the knowledge or the skill
>level to do successful rebuilds. They didn't see as many and didn't
>have the training or the tools.<snip>

That all changed when the Japs went to B-W for their automatics in the
'60s. The Toyota 830 is a B-W box built under license, as were the
Nissans. VW also went to B-W for their automatic transaxles in their
Varient/1600 series in the late '60s. All had one annoying feature
common to all B-Ws...bad modulation of the 1-2 shift and indifferent
part throttle downshifts, but they were very durable.

B-W autos weren't complicated at all, and were far easier than
redoing, say, a Dual Coupling HydraMatic or the horrid Chevy
Turboglide. Twin Turbine Dynaflows were also complex rebuilds that
commanded high prices. One reason shops didn't like B-Ws is because
they never saw them very often....they were too durable! Money hungry
tranny shops loved GM the best, especially in the late '70s and '80s
during the height of the THM200 scam by GM...a Chevette transmission
in V6 and V8 powered cars, for which they (again) were sued and lost.

misc tranny comments.....(please make allowances for the passage of time
& my memory)

oddly enough, my first car was a '56 Packard Four Hundred with
Twin-Ultramatic......car was 10 years old when I got it and the tranny
was awesome!!!! and, since I was 18 years old, you can believe that I
beat on it. Eventually, however, it started to leak......had it rebuilt
by Aamco and it was almost as good as new.....10 years later, only a
private 1 man shop would work on it and they never got the final "shift"
(actually engagement of lock-up clutch) right.....and it burned it up
pretty quick.But considering the "makeshift" nature of mods to the
original Ultramatic, the weight of the car, and the difference in output
of the V8 vs S8, it did a good job. Always liked the "double passing
gears" : first downshift was just the clutch unlocking and torque
converter going online - adequate for most passing
situations.......second downshift added low gear and wow, did it fly!

speaking of weight, I remember that one of the modifications for '56 was
making the case out of aluminum instead of iron.....which reduced weight
something like 95 pounds. Geees, what did the thing weigh?

other: of course, John DeLorean was behind the '56 pushbutton control
fiasco and other gadgets, but had nothing to do with the original
Ultramatic of '50.........have some articles somewhere by the principal
designer, Forest McFarland, in which he says the main problem with the
V8 application was that the clutch wasn't made larger. and, it is my
understanding that TU had a much better record in the '56 Golden
Hawk......although still dealing with the massive power, the car was
1000 pounds lighter. don't know how it worked in '55 & "56 Hudsons &
Nashes, but the V8 itself was less troublesome in Hawk & Hahes since it
didn't have the vacuum booster on the oil pump.)


Stude automatics: the original '50 "Studebaker Automatic Drive" was
from the Borg-Warner Warner Gear Division and also featured a lock-up
torque converter clutch with virtually no durability problems. That
tranny was used by Stude thru '55. Since Stude production had fallen so
much (and by all indications, S-P wanted to use more Ultramatics in
Studes following Packard's purchase of Stude in June 1954) the Warner
Gear tranny tooling was shipped off and used by Jaguar and others in
Europe.

BW then furnished a lighter-duty unit which Stude called Flight-O-Matic
(Flash-O-Matic at AMC, Fordomatic, Mercomatic at FoMoCo). a decent
tranny, but not as good as the old Warner Gear version (didn't have the
lock-up, anti-creep, fewer bands, etc). It was beefed-up for the Avanti
as "Power Shift" and handled the power well.....also available in AMC
(forget what they called it). I had '67 & '72 Avantis with it and it
was acceptable.......although I've never heard an adequate explanation
of why B-Ws started in 2nd gear. But my '80 Avanti had Turbo-Hydro 400
and it was much better (but much newer design).

But perhaps the best engine/tranny/car combination I ever had was a '67
Checker: Chevy 327 with a Cruise-O-Matic (C6?? it had Drive 1 and
Drive 2 positions).......a great car!

"Some O" > wrote

> They definitely will take over the automatic market, but they should be
> lower cost than the geared 5/6sp automatics.

I also wonder if a version stripped of its automatic control circuitry could
replace conventional manuals. They would have far fewer parts, and be much
easier to learn to drive (no need to clutch when shifting, for example).

Doug wrote:

>
> Independant transmission shops always bad-mouthed the Borg-Warner
> automatic, in part because they didn't have the knowledge or the skill
> level to do successful rebuilds. They didn't see as many and didn't
> have the training or the tools.
>


The high cost of BW rebuilds is why many Jags were converted to V-8/US
automatic power. Personally I would rather have a 5 speed manual, which
people pay stupid sums for kits to put a Toyota five speed behind the
XK engine. The Toyota five speed is cheaply available and there is no
reason to pay big money when one can simply have a scattershield-style
bellhousing made for about $600.

There is also the "Quarterbreed" conversion which puts a THM350 or
700R4 behind the XJ engine.


http://www.johnscars.com/qb/xj6qb.htm

Which Jaguars are compatible with this conversion?


XJ6 Quarterbreed kits are for all 68 to 87 XJ6 models (XJ6, XJ6C,
XJ6L). Kits for XJ12, XJS, Mark I, II, IX or X are available too. No
kits for ETypes yet. The Jaguar T400 from later V12 engines and the
German ZF transmission on 1988-on XJ6's (XJ40) will not bolt to a
pre-88 Jaguar 6-cylinder nor to early V12s equipped with a Borg-Warner.
There's never been a GM trans behind a Jaguar 6-cylinder until John's
Cars Quarterbreed.

Why should I put a GM Transmission in my XJ6?
The archaic, light duty BW (derived from a 1962 Rambler design) and its
idiosyncrasies are expelled by a GM Turbo Hydra-matic (THM)
transmission. Prime benefits of the Quarterbreed conversion:

* Strong and reliable - Jaguar uses a GM THM in their later V12
cars, Rolls-Royce has used them since 1969.
* Quarterbreed cars are quicker - less mass, better gear ratios
and stall speeds. They also have consistent upshift and downshift
characteristics.
* Older Jaguars with a 3.08, 3.31 or 3.54 rear axle ratio really
benefit from a GM overdrive, relaxing a buzzy 3000 RPM cruising speed
to a calming 2100+. Lower RPM means better gas mileage and less
engine wear and tear.
* Years later - if your Quarterbreed needs tranny service in Bass
Lake, CA., you can have it repaired for a fraction of the BW price tag,
not to mention the same day.
* Faster Starts - the GM flywheel-starter combination creates
more torque and cranks faster... Plus you'll eliminate the death rattle
flywheel and the $$$ Lucas (Prince of Darkness) starter.
* Finally, when your cat finally uses up all 9 lives and it's
time for a V8 - you will already have the transmission, starter and
more. I will even allow you $200.00+ for the QB kit leftovers returned
when you go Chevy V8.

The Jaguar twin cam 6-cylinder is retained without modification to it
or the car. The shifter retains its original appearance. Check out
our Customer Testimonials.

Which transmission should I use?

* T350 for 1982 to 1987 Jags (with a 2.88 differential).
Inexperienced drivers can lug the Jag motor (258 CID) when combined
with a T700 30% overdrive and a 2.88 rear end.
* T700 overdrive for pre-1982 cars (with a 3.08, 3.31 or 3.54
differential) to reduce cruising RPM.
* T400 is not recommended as it is more involved and not necessary
for the horsepower/torque of a 4.2L.
* Don't use a 4L60E or 4L80E on your Quarterbreed.




John's Cars is the home of halfbreeds - those wonderfully English
cars with American drivelines. While not everyone loves my V8
conversions, most loathe the Borg-Warner (BW) automatic transmission.
Time for another John's Cars exclusive retrofit:
Jaguar
Body + Jaguar
V12 Motor + GM T700
Overdrive + Jaguar
Suspension = V12 QUARTERBREED (QB)

What is the V12 Quarterbreed?
MORE QB's
Quarterbreed for XJ6
Quarterbreed for Marks

The V12 Quarterbreed is a John's Cars kit that allows you to put a GM
T700 overdrive transmission behind a Jaguar V12 engine. This kit is
not compatible with the V12 XKE although it is under consideration.



This conversion is compatible with all Jaguars in the XJ series that
have a V12 motor and GM T400 hydramatic. This includes all 1978 to 1996
XJS and XJS HE and all 1978 to 1992 XJ12 models (XJ12, XJ12L, XJ12C).
This conversion is compatible with left-hand and right-hand drive cars.

This kit is not compatible with the V12 XKE although it is under
consideration. Quarterbreed kits for Jag 6-cylinders (XJ6 Sedans, Mark
I, II, IX or X models) are available - call for free info.



There is a street rod in the area with a Weber-carbed 4.2 and the
John's 700R4 swap whose owner reports complete satisfaction.

In article >,
(Itsfrom Click) wrote:

> Always liked the "double passing
> gears" : first downshift was just the clutch unlocking and torque
> converter going online - adequate for most passing
> situations.......second downshift added low gear and wow, did it fly!
My '95 Concord does that for 2 nd through 4 th.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:01:53 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>other: of course, John DeLorean was behind the '56 pushbutton control
>fiasco and other gadgets, but had nothing to do with the original
>Ultramatic of '50. <snip>

The first Ultramatic came out in mid '48 in the new "bathtubs" to
compete with Buick's new Dynaflow. Buick already had a better engine,
and Packard felt that they'd better have an automatic transmission if
they were going to keep offering their obsolete flathead 8. De Lorean
hired on at Packard in early 1952 after getting a better offer from
them to quit his new job at Chrysler's engineering department in
Highland Park, MI. He soon replaced a retiring Forest McFarland as
chief of R&D at Packard, and it was he who updated the Ultramatic to
"Twin Ultramatic" and contracted with Ford's Autolite for the electric
control for '56...a fatal flaw. James Nance, head of Packard, had
hoped that De Lorean's and stylist Dick Teague's young talents could
combine to save Packard from their '48-'50 "bathtub" fiasco and their
indifferent styling of '51-'54, but they just didn't have enough
capital to work with, and Packard's ancient factory was ill suited for
modern mass production. As it was, Teague's new body for the '55s was
scrapped and a clever "remake" of the '51 body sufficed for '55 and
'56. The V8s came about three years too late, and the Ultramatic
already had a nasty reputation when compared to GM's HydraMatic and
even Buick's Dynaflow. Had Packard had the V8s before Buick
introduced theirs in '53, had the Ultramatic project gone a bit better
and had they been able to switch over to Dick Teague's new body styles
slated for '57, Packard might have been able to give GM and Ford some
serious gas for awhile competing against their more profitable
high-end cars. A resurgent Packard would've wiped out Ford's Edsel
even worse than it turned out, and GM's Buick and Olds divisions
would've had some serious erosion. As it turned out, the takeover of
Packard by the Studebakers was more a marriage of two also-rans, with
predictable results.

>........have some articles somewhere by the principal
>designer, Forest McFarland <snip>

See above.

>in which he says the main problem with the
>V8 application was that the clutch wasn't made larger. <snip>

That wasn't really a problem, so long as line pressure could be
maintained. The real problem was that the torque converter output
shaft bushing would wear and start to leak a lot of oil, thus
depriving the lockup clutch servo (and every other servo in the
transmission, not to mention the lube lines) of pressure, thus causing
the TCC to start to slip. The straight 8s could tolerate this awhile
longer, since they were quite a bit lower in torque than, especially,
the '56 V8. Once the bushing would leak, a predictable series of
failure events would happen, first with a lack of lube oil to the rear
of the transmission, then overheating of fluid caused by converter
clutch slippage, and total failure shortly thereafter. Even Packard
fanciers these days replace the Ultramatic with a THM700R4. Stick
shift or GM converted '55 and '56 Packards also command premium prices
over Ultramatic examples except for purists. Another factor was
inefficiency...much power produced by the Packard 374 was wasted in
the 4 element torque converter during acceleration, much as it was in
contemporary Buicks. There is only one source I know of in the world
for Ultramatic master kits anymore, and he's retiring any day
now....Reseda Transmission in Los Angeles.

>and, it is my
>understanding that TU had a much better record in the '56 Golden
>Hawk......although still dealing with the massive power, the car was
>1000 pounds lighter. <snip>

Hard to say...not that many Golden Hawks were produced! Many Golden
Hawk owners have similarly ditched the Ultramatic for the THM400 and
THM700R4 conversions.

> don't know how it worked in '55 & "56 Hudsons &
>Nashes, but the V8 itself was less troublesome in Hawk & Hahes since it
>didn't have the vacuum booster on the oil pump.) <snip>

The oil pump mess on the '56s was due to a flimsy bottom casting that
would warp and cause leaks, thus lowering oil gallery pressure.
Hudsons and Nashes used electric wipers and didn't need the vacuum
pump, which was replaced with a steel plate that did not warp.

The '56 Hudson and Nash used the Packard V8, but with GM's
discontinued (for cars, not trucks) Dual Range HydraMatic. Although
these cars looked like they were more suited for a rest home than
anywhere else, they could easily eat lesser Chevies and Fords, even
Oldsmobiles, due to their huge displacement and efficient
transmission.

GM loved the deal, since they were switching over to the new Dual
Coupling HydraMatic on mid-'56 cars, and providing both the new AMC
and GMC Truck and Coach with cast iron HydraMatics cleaned up lots of
surplus cases and parts until 1962. A '56 Hudson or Nash so equipped
would run rings around any '56 Packard, simply due to the better
transmission of power to the rear axle. I know...I had a '56 Hudson
Wasp Hollywood sedan for awhile, and I've also driven a few '55 and
'56 Packards. The Packards accelerate like a bus in comparison. One
drive in that car told the tale of why Nash had to fold their
tent...the car drove like a pre-war Ford and couldn't safely handle
the power of the big Packard V8. Brakes were as bad as Chrysler's
Lockheed brakes of that era...meaning horrible. All the Big 3 cars
handled and rode far better than the Hudsons/Nashes of '55-'56. The
Hudson would wallow, bounce and shoulder side to side in the most
disconcerting fashion, even worse than a '37 Ford. Also, interior
appointments in the Hudson harkened back to around 1946. They simply
could not compete. By '58, George Romney's new AMC dumped the big
Hudsons and Nashes and concentrated on their bread and butter...the
Rambler and Metropolitain lines.

> Stude automatics: the original '50 "Studebaker Automatic Drive" was
>from the Borg-Warner Warner Gear Division and also featured a lock-up
>torque converter clutch with virtually no durability problems. That
>tranny was used by Stude thru '55. <snip>

That was the DG-150/200 three band, a heavy beast, almost outweighing
GM's chunky HydraMatic.

> Since Stude production had fallen so
>much (and by all indications, S-P wanted to use more Ultramatics in
>Studes following Packard's purchase of Stude in June 1954) <snip>

The ink on the Stude takeover was dried in early 1955, with conveyance
of all Packard equities to Studebaker at the end of 1956 production.
The first thing the Studes did was shut down the Detroit Packard
factory and trash all the Packard archives and records. Next, they
sold the near-new Packard engine plant to Chrysler. That's where all
those "A" engine hydraulic lifters came from, as well as many other
"A" engine parts.

> the Warner
>Gear tranny tooling was shipped off and used by Jaguar and others in
>Europe. <snip>

Studebaker rejected the Ultramatic due its bad reputation after the
Golden Hawk had problems with it, preferring to stay with B-W until
1964. Also, retaining the Ultramatic would've made keeping the
Detroit plant open, something that was a non-starter with the Studes.
B-W also provided auto transmissions for Checker Motors up until 1971,
even after going to Chevrolet Division engines in 1964. Prior to
that, unless special ordered, all Checkers used Continental 223" 6s
with B-W Model 8s, while optional Chevy V8s used the Model 12, same as
what was used by Studebaker and licensed to Ford as the original MX.

>BW then furnished a lighter-duty unit which Stude called Flight-O-Matic
>(Flash-O-Matic at AMC, Fordomatic, Mercomatic at FoMoCo). a decent
>tranny, but not as good as the old Warner Gear version (didn't have the
>lock-up, anti-creep, fewer bands, etc).<snip>

True to AMC after GM ceased providing Dual Range Hydra Matics for AMC
at the end of the '62 model year. '63 onward AMC used B-Ws
exclusively, while Stupidbaker continued using B-Ws all along. GM had
closed the cast iron lines at Detroit Transmission to make way for the
new Turbo HydraMatic 400 line which debuted in '64.

> It was beefed-up for the Avanti
>as "Power Shift" and handled the power well.....also available in AMC
>(forget what they called it). <snip>

'Flash-O-Matic,' derisively known as "Flush-O-Matic" in view of
superior offerings from the Big 3 at the time.

>I had '67 & '72 Avantis with it and it
>was acceptable.......although I've never heard an adequate explanation
>of why B-Ws started in 2nd gear. <snip>

That was a B-W Model 12 design which Studebaker used to replace the
B-W DG150/200 three band from 1956 until 1964. Avantis with B-Ws
that I saw had a similar quadrant to Ford MX/FMX/C4/C6s until '68.
Common mistake also with Ford drivers who didn't start the car in the
*second* drive position (the green dot). Ford got the second gear
start option from B-W and found it a popular feature for drivers in
the NE and north, who had to drive on ice all the time. The reduced
torque at the rear wheels due to a second gear start would prevent
wheel spin. That's why they carried through the second gear start
ability with the 1968 revision called "SelectShift" on all later C4s
and C6s.

> But my '80 Avanti had Turbo-Hydro 400
>and it was much better (but much newer design). <snip>

1964, introduced on the Cadillac DeVille and above cars. The base
Series 62, the Series 75 limos and Commercial Chassis used leftover
Dual Coupling HydraMatics until late in '64 when they were depleted.
They're actually more desirable cars. The "new" 390 with a Dual
Coupling would out accelerate any THM400 car every time and turn in
better fuel economy...GM duping the public...again...still? The other
part of the plant that was producing Rotos for Olds and Pontiac would
then be shut down in late '64, and Buick, Olds and Pontiac
intermediates would get stuck with Buick's 275 and 300 2 speeder with
a switch pitch converter while GM converted those lines to THM400
production. Again, performance and economy suffered. Meanwhile,
Chevrolet Divsion, by then managed by (guess who?) John De Lorean, was
given the OK to build their own, cheapened version of the THM called
the 350, while Buick converted their 275/300 production to the THM375
to supply Buick and Pontiac. For a few years there, it could get
quite confusing as to what car had what transmission, especially at
Pontiac.

>But perhaps the best engine/tranny/car combination I ever had was a '67
>Checker: Chevy 327 with a Cruise-O-Matic (C6?? it had Drive 1 and
>Drive 2 positions).......a great car! <snip>

If it was a '67 A-series Marathon, it had a B-W 12, like AMC V8 cars.
When CMC abandoned Continental for engines due to Continental's
refusal to stay in the automotive gas engine business, they opted for
the Chevy 6s and V8s and used the B-W 8 or 12 until 1971, when they
went with the THM350 from Chevrolet Division. From about '65 to the
end, B-W was supplying units simply to supply Checker and AMC and by
'71, they decided to exit the US business, which sent Checker to GM
for a "package deal" on Chevy engines and transmissions, and sent AMC
to Chrysler begging for Torqueflites.

The big reason B-W finally left the US transmission market was Ford.
When the MX/FMX was replaced by the C6 in '66, B-W lost their biggest
income stream and parts buyer, since the C4/C6s were strictly a Ford
product built with a lot of Chrysler's A-727 Torqueflite design.
Simply supplying AMC and Checker wasn't attractive long term to B-W,
as sales of both were on the decline. By that time, B-W's
transmission business was focusing on eliminating US manufacturing
altogether, preferring to live on design/license work done for the
Japanese and Euro builders. Almost all Japanese cars imported to the
US in the '70s had a B-W licensed box, as did VWs.

Checker's reputation for economical and rugged operation went down the
crapper with the Chevrolet conversion. The old Continentals, which
had been around since the late '20s, and B-Ws were bullet proof in
taxi and airport/hotel shuttle service, while the Chevrolets
were...well...Chevrolets. It was after the first round of GM powered
Checkers that many fleet operators started going back to Chrysler to
avoid the short engine life of Chevy V8s, which would usually barely
make 70-80K miles before major work was needed. Soft camshafts and
"walking" main bearing caps were a Chevrolet trademark well into the
'80s.

It wasn't uncommon for the lowly old Connie 6 to rack up 300K miles
without having its head off. One fleet I worked for had a few '61
Checker Aerobuses with Connie 6s and B-W 8s. The longest toothed one
had over 402K on it and was still original except for a valve grind.
The B-W had only been drained and bands adjusted...period.