Register now to get rid of these ads!

Caddy guys school me on the Jetaway

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Ft.ValloniaStreaker, Dec 17, 2013.

  1. Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Joined: Nov 22, 2011
    Posts: 69

    Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Member

    I bought a 429 with a Jetaway on it, I had no idea what it was and and am still pretty clueless. Are they worth using? I have the yoke so all I'll need to do is fab up a drive shaft. If the masses sway me another direction, like a 400 turbo, I'm still not out much.....
     
  2. belair
    Joined: Jul 10, 2006
    Posts: 8,644

    belair
    Member

    I have never heard a good word about them here.
     
  3. BOBCRMAN
    Joined: Nov 10, 2005
    Posts: 846

    BOBCRMAN
    Member
    from Holly

    Piece of crap.. Weigh it up. Check local scrap prices..
     
  4. 302GMC
    Joined: Dec 15, 2005
    Posts: 6,635

    302GMC
    Member
    from Idaho

    The '56-'63 Hydramatic will give no trouble if maintained. Don't confuse this trans with the Slim Jim - Roto-Hydro - 315 thing used in '61-'64 Olds & Pontiac
     

  5. Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Joined: Nov 22, 2011
    Posts: 69

    Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Member

    This is out of a 64-67 hearse, I'll post a pic when I get to work in the morning.
     
  6. Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Joined: Nov 22, 2011
    Posts: 69

    Ft.ValloniaStreaker
    Member

    Ok, here's what I'm talking about.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. inline 292
    Joined: Aug 25, 2006
    Posts: 296

    inline 292
    Member

    I never heard of one used for racing, But, they were a good, solid gearbox when driven as a typical Olds or Cad owner would. Your average trans. builder of that day had no quarrel with building them.
     
  8. If I'm not mistaken, that was a substitute when the Hydramatic plant burned. Nothing better than a th400.
     
  9. If they were in good working condition, they were good transmissions in their day. The down side is all the rebuilders that are best familiar with them are long gone.

    Bob
     
  10. junkyardjeff
    Joined: Jul 23, 2005
    Posts: 7,826

    junkyardjeff
    Member

    The jetaway is a decent trans but does not shift as hard as a 55 on back hydramatic,I had a 59 jetaway in a 53 Olds and played with the linkage a bit to get a little more pressure so it would shift a little firmer.
     
  11. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 11,885

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    The Hydramatic plant burned in 1953. Buick Dynaflows were substituted in some Oldsmobiles until Hydramatic production could be resumed.

    The OP's engine is a 429 and it appears to have the BOP/C block/trans bolt pattern which, IIRC, was introduced in Caddy production with the '64 429.
    If that is so, it should a simple bolt on process to install a Turbohyramatic 400, a very good alternative, as you suggest.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2013
  12. aerorocket
    Joined: Oct 25, 2007
    Posts: 488

    aerorocket
    Member
    from N.E. P.A.

    This is true and they are tough. I had one in a 389 Pontiac powered 55 Chevy it was slower shifting and not as firm as the old dual range hydros. If you are going to use it I would try to find someone to check it over and at least replace the seals as it is 50 years old and that hearse which it was in was no feather.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2013
  13. roughneck424
    Joined: Jan 10, 2009
    Posts: 1,084

    roughneck424
    Member

  14. Spidercoupe
    Joined: Mar 5, 2005
    Posts: 174

    Spidercoupe
    Member
    from Bevier, MO

    My dad had one in an olds. after rebuilding it 3 times in 12000 miles,
    the first 12000 of the cars life, we changed it to a three on the tree. If dad got over 60 mph it was fast. no hot rodding for him. now it was a different tune for me.
     
  15. theHIGHLANDER
    Joined: Jun 3, 2005
    Posts: 8,178

    theHIGHLANDER
    Member

    I'm wondering how it ended up on the back of a 429. In mid 63 the trans was changed to the 400 on the back of the last version of the 390. A 63 390 and 64 429 look similar, and if I recall used the same valve covers. It still begs the question how did this end up there? The shift lever indicator was the 1st and easiest tell. If it was a "prindle", PRND2L, Turbo 400. If it was a "pindler", PNDLR, a slush box, or Hydramatic. The 400 is the way to go. That trans would have some value to a restoration project from early 63 and older. Not junk, but not real hot rod material.
     
  16. The dual-coupling hydro is pleasant to drive with; it has four speeds and locks up in high gear sort of like a 700R4 works. You can put it in 3rd and it shifts itself to high gear around 65-70 MPH. The problem is parts are obsolete and very few can fix them, so you don't want to beat on it. But I never had a problem with mine in a daily with a 389 Pontiac on it.

    They are by no means the junk that a slim-jim Roto-Hydramatic is.
     
  17. bryan6902
    Joined: May 5, 2008
    Posts: 1,137

    bryan6902
    Member

    I have the dual-coupling in my 57 Pontiac and it works well now that it's been rebuilt. Getting it rebuilt was NOT CHEAP! As some one mentioned earlier ALL of the seals will be rock hard inside of it if they happen to be the original pieces. If you don't end up using it I would bet you could sell it. Hard parts are scarce and I know there was some NOS pieces for my rebuild that drove the price up considerably.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.