I was just reading up a bit on these transmissions. Never owned or even driven one that I can recall. If you search the Hamb threads you will see they weren't exactly bulletproof. But the concept, as I understand it, was three separate turbines in the torque converter spinning different gear sets, such that there was no, or barely noticeable shifts. Do I have that right? Sounds pretty neat.. So, was it just reliability that led to their demise, a flaw in the basic concept, too complex, or..?
Never had any experience with a Dynaflow but a friend of mine had a 60 Chevy 348 with a Turboglide that couldn't get out of its own way. Many Chevy owners had dealer Powerglide replacements for the Terribleglides. Probably the worst transmissions Chevy ever had. Gary
Dynaflows and Powerglides didn't do much of anything shift-wise until '53 when the PG starts in low & shifts. I don't remember any Buick shifting until '64. In '58, Buick had an equally useless thing kinda like the Turboglide in the form of the Flightpitch, which was such a success they sold a crated conversion to Dynaflow within a year.
Turboglide was Chevy's first aluminum case automatic, saw a few sold as 62-3 up aluminum 'glides. There was a low range in the Turboglide, but was not used normally. That was named after the grades of the guy who designed it, Grade Retard. Both it and the Dynaflow were based on the idea of all gear multiplication taking place in the 3 [or more] element torque convertor. Problem was, a TC just doesn't have enough torque multiplication by itself. That's why the cars were dogs. I remember reading about a test GM had of a '58 equipped with an FI 283 where a kid with a radio flyer wagon could always beat it across an intersection. GM built some awful automatics in the '50s to avoid paying Simpson license fees or Borg Warner to use their Ravigneux gearset trans. They could have done what Ford did, just ripoff BW. [note the Wikipedia page on Ravigneux is almost entirely full of shit.] I remember an old, diehard GM wrench telling me how shocked he was when he first drove a late '50s era Mopar with a Torqueflyte, which of course is a Simpson gear train. GM delayed using that design until 1964 when they finally did a deal with BW for the 400.
One of my friends had a new 58, 348 with the TG, and it was constantly in the garage for transmission warrantee problems. He never did get it working right and traded the car off on an 54 Merc hdtp. No more problems, and no more payments. I had a 54 322 engine with a Dynaslow in my 47 Chev coupe, because, at the time, I couldn't afford the cost of acquiring a standard 3 spd. The Dynaslow was a POS on the launch, but from 20mph up, it worked much better. I was sooooo happy to put the stick in. I ran the Buick running gear from front to back. It was bullet proof. Bob
Turboglide - in early 1958 one of my high school buddies parents bought a '58 Chevy, 4 door hardtop with a 348 / Turboglide. He figured out that by winding it out in GR then slapping it into drive would result in both rear tires breaking loose (Positraction rear) and leave about 15' of twin tire tracks. Dynaflow - About the same time my cousin started driving his family's '56 Buick Roadmaster. His trick was to floor it in Drive then immediately pulling it down into Lo causing the right rear tire to disappear in a cloud of smoke with an impressive burn-out more than a car length long. Both transmissions failed within 3 months.................
Love those old promo videos, and it does show the basic principle. The idea of hydraulically changing the leverage on the input shaft, instead of gears, still sounds intriguing, but if they couldn't make it work I sure as heck couldn't.
Apparently you don't understand the design of the Turboglide. The three element torque converter doesn't do all the gear reduction, it merely selects how much gear reduction is used. There are reduction gears in the transmission, it's a three speed transmission.
The first thing I look at when admiring a 57-60 Chevrolet interior is the automatic shift indicator especially 59-60's for the Gr. I have found a few and if I see the owner ask if the turboglide is still in the car. Most guys I know have no idea they even existed. I only drove one back in 62; it was a 60 Impala hard top and I remember it being the first one I ever saw with cruise control.
I knew where a Turboglide transmission was sitting, a few years ago....I was tempted to get it just to take it apart and admire the crazy engineering. The Turboglide is one of those great ideas that they should have given up on in 1955....well before it went into production!
Yes , you could do that, but the shift was not timed correctly, and the overlap made it sound and feel like it was going to break in half at that point. You don't have to ask how I know this.
Yes, the Turboglide was a dead duck by the time I got into the trade. C4s and 350s paid off my mortgages. Automatic overhaul was a semi-occult thing back in the bundocs when I took it up and those of the old hands I did learn something from had bad things to say about many GM offerings from the mid to late '50s era. As another poster mentioned, my first ride with a Turboglide was also my first ride with a 348, something rare in the backwaters. I, too, popped the hood expecting a 235. What a slug, what a disappointment. Way back before the high stall torque converter industry took off I had the bright idea of trying to adapt a multi-element [more then 3...] convertor to replace a normal converter for better low speed acceleration. But such converters as the Dynaflow, it turns out, had little more torque multiplication than a 3 element converter. Actually dug up some converter design books through inter-library loan and, from what I remember, no variation of torque converter does much better than a plane-jane 3 element type. This would include the Turboglide variation. Although I never overhauled one, so never wrestled with the intricacies, I drove quite a few and they were all shiftless pigs, just like the Dynaflow. I would guess that such advantage as it did have, theoretically speaking, may have been in a narrow RPM band as vortex flow subsided around the hydraulic coupling point. In practical terms, it was a one-speed slug.
I've no experience with Dynaflow nor Turboglide, but on the surface the concept sounds reasonable. What was it that failed in these transmissions, and were they dogs just because of inefficient coupling in the torque converter?
I have a freshly rebuilt Dynaflow and I hate it. The power loss going through that slush box must be astronomical.
My off- topic stock 57 was born with a Turbo Glide and the shift quadrant said HR for Hill Retarder instead of GR. Must have been a Tarrytown assy plant thing !!!! Trans lasted about 2 years, had it replaced with a used 56 PG, but the trans shop didn't realize it was necessary to change the flex plate also, nothing but trouble with cracked FP webs till they figured it out. Going on 60+ years now and running a 200 4R trans and love it. Ralphie
They were dogs because a torque converter is not capable of supplying enough torque multiplication range all on it's own. Max is about 2.5 to 1, although GM listed at least one with 2.7 to one and one version for the HD 4L80E has 2 stators and claims 3.5 to 1. But, the max torque multiplication in all convertors quickly reduces as vehicle speed rises above zero, much faster than needed to make a functional trans. Note that torque multiplication is not the same as stall speed.
Thanks again Bob, glad you chimed in. Interestingly, my '58 Impala with 283 and Powerglide would do highway speeds in low if you wound it high enough, with standard converter of course. It was no rocket off the line but nobody really complained about it. Maybe the Turboglide converter with two gears would have been the ticket?
that's why they had planetary gears....to provide more torque multiplication, so the converter wouldn't have to do it all on it's own.
Yep 1957 was a tough year to buy a automatic trans in a Chevy. The Turboglide was lacking and the Powerglide was not much better.I can not afford enough floor dry for my Powerglide ,must be time to 4 speed it.
I have driven my dad's 54 Roadmaster on several occasions and the dynaflow works well for what it is. It along with the stock 322 move the heavy beast along fine, though maybe not as quick as a more modern transmission would. One has to consider unless your name is Tommy Ivo you aren't going to race a car that big so who cares about any performance loss? The turboglide is a more recent discovery to me and I have no experience with one.
Hello, My dad always bought Buicks for himself and as our family cars. They were all automatics starting with a 1941 fastback 2 door sedan in 1946. They always ran fine and never had any problems on our long driving vacations other than the 1952 version, falling into a ditch in Baja… The transmission was smooth and comfortable, kind of like riding on air. Every 4-5 years, my dad’s philosophy was to get a new car. So, saving for 4 years, another Buick was purchased in 1957, a 2 door Buick Roadmaster. It was the nicest car we had ever ridden in, and it was a 2 door sedan. Besides, unless we, as a family, put on a couple of thousand miles on a road trip, his daily driving only put on 12k miles per year, so in 4 years, a 44k miles used car was always turned into the dealer for a new Buick. driveway Westside Long Beach, CA Years later, the 1963 Riviera was a step up in quality and luxury. The following years 68, 73, 78, 82 Buicks all had the name: Dynaflow Transmission and they were super smooth and reliable. Of course, my dad’s driving was a 45 mile round trip to Los Angeles daily for 38 years without any problems. the big 57 Buick in the narrow driveway in Long Beach. Being a family and daily driving sedan, the Buicks were never abused or given the stupid burn out displays. They were just cool, reliable cruisers. Several times, I did take the blue 57 Buick to the entrance of the (almost 1 mile + 1/8th straightaway) Terminal Island Freeway, near our house. The full throttle acceleration was very smooth and fun. It was fast, but not as “throw back the neck, fast” as my 58 348/280 HP Impala. Big and wide, but clears the house and fence with inches to spare. There was no need to fiddle with the gear levers. Brakes, full gas pedal and release the brake was the best way to go and race. Note: There was one 57 Buick sedan that was a terror at Lions Dragstrip in the A/Stock class. The driver was pretty quick, but our 58 Impala caught him before the traps, once we figured out how to get faster starts. Jnaki These days, to keep a Buick stock, a Dynaflow could be used. We never had problems with either a Dynaflow or the Powerglide in my friend’s 56 Chevy cruiser. But with the new transmission types that can be exchanged for the old stock one, that is a choice for the owner. In 1960, When it was time to changeover to a stick hydro in my Impala, the choice was down to an Olds transmission that C&O modified for the installation. That had many miles of racing, cruising and mountain road climbing until 1965 when I sold the Impala to a friend. going out to dinner IS THIS LENNY KENNEDY IN 1958-59? We wish it were my dad in his blue 57 Buick Roadmaster...! “The Oldtimers say Lennie "Pop" Kennedy was the first man to run down the Pomona Drag Strip. His first Buick was a 100% pure stock 1955 Century that turned a best of 86.97 at 15.60. In those days everyone ran their cars stock before they started cheating, so I was able to witness first hand which car was really the fastest off the showroom. The Dynaflow, coupled with the old man's tremendous reflexes made it a real mystery car.” “How could a Dynaflow, of all things consistently beat those '55 Chevy sticks? In 1961 I bought a '55, blueprinted (the) motor, and installed the hot gear set up for that year car- 4.44 gears from a Buick ambulance. It turned a best of 14.73 at 93 mph which was enough to handle the trick 1957 Powerglide cars from Marv Ripes A-1 Transmission and Bill's Service. There was no question that the 1955-56 Buick trans had the first high stall converter.” “For the ’57 model year, Buick bumped up the nailhead’s displacement to 364ci, as the cars themselves were growing bigger and heavier. The 364 was a vert different engine thanb the earlier small-cube nailheads, so few parts interchanded with the later models 364/401/425 engines. With a stout 9.5:1 compression ratio, the new 364 was good for 250 hp. If that wasn’t enough motivation for your driving style, Buick engineers brought forth an optional 10:1 version that brought the power output to an even 300 hp. While the 300 hp is the baseline for a tow rig these days, remember that even the fuelie 283ci SBC were only good for 283 hp in 1957.” “The first time out with the '57 Buick, at the old San Gabriel Drag Strip, the Dynaflow laid down a 14.90 at 90 mph. The Century was a 364 cu in. 4 bbl with 3.90 gears.” So, the Lenny Kennedy saga starts with this 55, then the 57 Buick in So Cal.” 57 BUICK VS 58 IMPALA Lions 1958-59
The Jalopy Journal
