Limits of a '40s, '50s Caddy/Lasalle/Olds manual box

I'm looking for thoughts opinions and down right definitive statements from anyone who knows about the late '40s early '50s Caddy/Lasalle manual box that made a brief guest starring appearance for one year and one year only in the 1950 Olds 88 (with shortened tailshaft).

Can anyone suggest what would be the smart upper limit of power and torque that I should think about putting through it in a 4500-5000 lb (fully loaded) vehicle? I won't be taking it to the dragstrip or street racing but it will get well used and needs to be reliable. I currently have a 65 year old stock 303 which only put out 130bhp new and is going to be rebuilt and I'm thinking of modifying it in various ways. The most powerful combo I'm considering as a possibility would push out around 300bhp and 400 torque but I don't necessarily have to go that far. If the box is only happy at the stock motor's level then that's one thing I need to know, and if it is there or thereabouts at 300bhp/400 ft/lb then that would be great (but I suspect unlikely) - and if its only half way up that power range it would be nice to know the collective wisdom on that too.

In similar vein does anyone have thoughts and suggestions about clutch arrangements in the more powerful application?

Cheers everyone.
Erik

 

They are plenty stout for as much power as your 303 will ever make.

 

Would this be for the '50 Olds Coupe in your profile page album?
That has to be one of my all time bucket list cars.
I know the 4 speed Hydramatic has a great following and for good reason but,
I would put a stick in there in a heartbeat.
Either a complete stock setup with Hurst floor shift conversion,
or better yet a '37 LaSalle box with the '50 Olds tail shaft.
Finding the stock pedal setup may be a challenge,
but I'm sure they are out there, as are the '37 boxes.

 

Hoarder

 

WOW Paul I love that setup.

Gary

 

I had a new '57 Olds stick 2-dr sedan (371 in), and trashed two stock transmissions in less than 2000 miles. I switched to a '37 LaSalle and never broke another gear, but the synchros (and the mating teeth on the main drive and 2nd gear) were prone to wear and that was a major nuisance. Until really bulletproof 4-speeds became available, the Cad/LaSalle was definitely the top of the heap for powerful engines.

And yeah, I envy you your '50 coupe too!

 

Thanks Hambres.
Paul, I'm thinking of a range of mods to the engine which at its upper limit would take it to the 300bhp/400 torques area in the OP which I'm sure Tony and the guys at RRE could get out of it for me - if I was prepared to pay for it and to take a relaxed approach to out-of-period mods. But reliability in the drive train is very high priority and I don't want to just go around blowing difficult to replace boxes.
If I could use the '50 Olds manual with something less than 300/400 but still a worthwhile jump up from the stock 303's output I suspect I'd take that in a flash.
However, if using a '50 Olds manual sensibly restricts me to not much more than the stock 303's 130 bhp then I need to think twice about what I do.
What I (thought) I understood was that from '51 onward the 88 had a different (poorer) manual box - sorry 50Fraud- but for the 1950 model year only it was basically the same Caddy/Lasalle box with non-synchro first that had been around since the '30s though with the stubby tailshaft.
In your comment you suggested the '37 Lasalle - was it in fact something different to the Caddy/Lasalle box that was used by Olds only in 1950?
Cheers
and of course I am loving your box collection!

 

The '51-up Olds trans was borrowed from Buick, and was definitely inferior to the Cad/LaSalle/50 Olds trans. The obvious difference in the '37 Cad/LaSalle is its floor shift lever ('38 on were all side shift), but there are also some subtle differences in the size of the roller bearings between the main drive and the tailshaft. There must also be a corresponding difference in the main drive, the tail shaft, or both, to accommodate the larger rollers from '38 on. I never learned where the difference was, and trashed a lot of parts in my ignorance. As far as I know the '50 Olds trans is identical to the side shift Cad/LaSalle except for the length of the tailshaft and its housing.

 

Thanks for that. Can I tease you into an opinion on the 'how much power is ok question?

Oh, by the way I think the secret to Paul's photo is that he must be some sort of wild genius who has discovered the secret to getting gearboxes to breed, using a weird machine called an electrolive-insatortron or some thing like that.

 

'can't testify to how they would hold up to hard launching a heavy car on a consistent basis but I ran one behind a blown 303 in my last hot rod without any issues, and I drove it pretty hard on street for several years and even on the strip a couple times.
the car probably only weighed half what yours does though.

can't see the transmission but this does show how nice they shift, here with a Hurst Mystery Shifter..

 

Thanks for the video Paul,
Very smooth sounding piece of machinery and lovely looking, especially the way the engine is framed. Believe it or not the bare trees and low winter sun are actually really 'exotic' for me. Eastern Australia is having a super cold snap right now which is effecting even the far North where I am and today is probably going to be the coldest day of the year; but it is still around 72 f. at 10.00am and of course we don't really get 'seasons' where the vegetation changes dramatically so the green out the window looks the same as it always does!

Are you interested in finding a new home for any of your box collection? I am getting enough positive feedback on the strength of the '50's manual box to give me enought confidence to move forward though the message seems to be to find a good one if I possibly can.
Am I right in thinking that 4 or 5 of the ones in shot are the '37 Lasalle with top mount for the shifter, and one is a sidemount with something like a Hurst on it?

Cheers
Erik