Was the 401 nailhead available with 3 on the tree in 1959?

Discussion in ''Da Nailhead' started by garybuick, Jun 11, 2016.

  1. 66electrafied

    66electrafied Just tossing in my nickel's worth

    The Twin Turbine was basically a single speed transmission with a low multiplier. It did have a low gear if selected, and when the pedal was mashed to the floor the thing went into fine pitch and took off, then shifted into high range at 45-50, and then the torque converter really took off and it was a steady pull at about 2500 to 130 mph or thereabouts. If you left the car in "drive", all you heard was it revving up a bit and then holding at about 1900-2000 and then a steady suck-you-back-in-the-seat pull to top speed. Driving a Dynaflow (or Twin Turbine as they were known later) is an experience you'll never get in a modern car. They were a lot smoother than the powerglide, the powerglide worked on a different philosophy than the Dynaflow.

    How I discovered it was just fooling around with a half-dead old 60 Invicta that I had just roused from a 10 year slumber in a bush. I just did what I had to do to drive it. It wouldn't dynaflow properly, so I had to manually shift it. And of course, I was young and broke at the time, not to mention there was nobody around here who even knew what dynaflow was.

    Triple Turbine was a forerunner of the Turbo Hydramatic series. They added a grade retarder and tried to tighten the whole works up. No it didn't work very well and was only offered in 58 and 59. By 60 it was no more. So by 1963 GM decided to marry the "Slim Jim" Jetaway Hydramatic (which was a dog) Chevy Powerglide and Buick's torque converter expertise, and came up with the Turbo-hydramatic series.
     
  2. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    So the twin turbine Dynaflow was a great transmission! Is it easy to tell by looking at it which tranny it is?
     
  3. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    I loved the '59 styling, and even with the low-compression 364 it still had plenty of punch. It was pretty much a "base" car - it had power steering and a radio and heater, but not much else.
     
  4. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    Perhaps I can lay this to rest - My '59 service manual on page 4-9 says "NOTE: Synchromesh transmissions are standard and automatic transmissions are optional on series 4400. The twin turbine transmission is standard and synchromesh is not available on Series 4600-4700-4800."
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2016
  5. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    what is synchromesh? are you saying it could be shifted from 2 to 3 without pushing the clutch pedal? but not 1st to 2nd? I thought synchronized meant you could downshift at any speed. I notice on my s10 I can downshift at any speed except 1st gear has to be below like 10 mph or so.
     
  6. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    So actually most 59 lesabres had the three on the tree and only some had the optional twin turbine dynaflow correct? So now we know that you could not get manual trans in Invicta or Electra but is there any indication besides what has already been suggested that a 401 option with the three speed could not be had in the LeSabre, where three speed was standard but dynaflow was an option. Was it just that the three speed was not strong enough for the 401 and thats why it was not offered? To avoid service problems? or maybe they just didnt want three speed paupers trannys in their rich mans cars with the Invicta and Electra badges.
     
  7. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    Synchromesh simply synchronizes (hence the name) the speed of the gears when shifting. This prevents clashing or grinding of the gears. This became standard with Buick gearboxes in the late '30s. Prior to synchromesh you had to double-clutch when shifting gears. You would step on the clutch pedal, shift out of whatever gear you were in, release the pedal, then step on the clutch pedal again as you shifted into the next gear. Most three-speed transmissions were synchronized only between second and high gears. They were synchronized on the 1 - 2 upshift, but not the 2 - 1 downshift. I think it was Ford in the '60s that finally synchronized the 2 - 1 downshift. With synchromesh you only pressed the clutch pedal once when shifting. It is possible to shift a synchronized transmission without stepping on the clutch pedal, but you need to practice it a bit; there needs to be no load - either from the engine or the drive axle - on the transmission when shifting without the clutch.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
  8. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    This is getting interesting. Ive never delved into the ancient Buicks of the 50s when the mechanical technology was still evolving. Double clutching, I never knew that. No wonder manual transmission was looked down on and automatics were hailed as a godsend.
     
  9. 66electrafied

    66electrafied Just tossing in my nickel's worth

    It was as John says, and this is the reason automatics became very popular here in North America. People were tired of "rowing molasses" (as it was described in another post) and loved the ease and comfort of an automatic. Especially since the automatics were improving by leaps and bounds during the 50s, a 48 or 50 Dynaflow was not the same animal as the 59 incarnation was. They got tighter, more responsive, and easier to maintain. It was a status symbol for a manufacturer to have an automatic in their stable, only technologically deprived companies still used standards. Even the Europeans were getting into it, Mercedes had a horrible Hydrak before they finally were able to buy the design and tooling of the original Hydramatic off of GM in 1961. Volkswagen used the semi-automatic (borrowed from Mercedes) and from personal experience it was a POS. I don't know where the romance of racing with a standard came in from; to actually be successful at racing one takes a lot of practice, usually at the expense of a couple of clutches. Very few guys I knew back in the day were any good at it.
     
  10. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    wasnt fuel economy a major advantage of manual trans?
     
  11. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    That would be very subjective.
     
  12. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    Originally yes. The Fluid coupling (used in the original GM dual-range hydramatics) and the early torque converters had some internal slippage. Standards didn't. The flip side is that standard shift cars usually had a lower (higher numerically) final drive gear ratio. With the advent of the lockup converter, fuel economy is a function of the overall gear ratio. The only significant advantage of the standard shift is the fun factor.
    BTW: My '59 service manual lists the only engine available in the LeSabre as the 364, and the only engine available in the senior series cars as the 401. Since the manual transmission was only available in the LeSabre, the 401 was not available from the factory with a manual transmission in 1959.
     
  13. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    Just to beat on this one a little more - The Buick (and Oldsmobile) three-speed manual transmission had it's roots in the '37 Cadillac/LaSalle floorshifter. Many internal parts will interchange right up to the end of it's production, and yes you could convert a '59 transmission to the '37 - '38 floorshift. The transmission was designed for a fairly heavy car with a bit over 100 hp. It was not designed for an engine that could produce 300 hp (the rating of a high-compression, four barrel 364). That is why the manual shift cars got the lower-compression, two barrel derated 364. The automatics got the high-compression 4 barrel engine. The venerable three speed manual, while a strong unit for it's day, (and was prized by early hot rodders who got tired of replacing broken early Ford boxes) simply was not up to the torque of the 401. A customer might have been able to talk a dealer into dropping a 401 into a stick LeSabre, but I'll guarantee that the factory would not have done it. :Smarty:
     
  14. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    Although this has a truthful sounding logic to it, it is not entirely true.
    It can be quite a complex subject at times and the OEM's were probably not offering manual tranny's for mileage reasons.
    It's quite provable both in the real world (although rarely done) as well as within the education of the OEM-bound engineer.
     
  15. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    I don't disagree with this. The internal friction and power absorption of the automatic could make a difference. Some automatics - such as the THM 400 do suck up a fair amount of horsepower. Also the oil pump and the extra weight of the transmission and related cooling system add weight to the car. When you start seriously dissecting things, there isn't much that is simple. I was trying to make a very complex topic as simple as possible. Modern automatics with torque converters can pull a taller final drive gear then a standard without one. Modern six-speed standard transmissions spend a lot of their time in lower gears thus not achieving the fuel economy of a computer-controlled automatic. I loved my Corvette with it's smooth-shifting super T-85 four-speed manual! BTW: I swapped the 3.78 gears for 3.36, then 3.08. It didn't make as much difference in acceleration as you might think, and it bought me 7 mpg on the highway.
     
  16. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    so what then is the truth?
     
  17. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    why is this? Manual trans has a big flywheel on it, autos only have flex plate and the harmonic balancer. Plus I have heard autos rob 100hp just to run. How is auto an advantage for low end torque?
     
  18. John Codman

    John Codman Platinum Level Contributor

    Because a torque converter multiplies the torque entering the transmission - a flywheel doesn't. Simply put, the automatic transmission may absorb more horsepower then the manual, but there's more torque at the drive axle. The automatic doesn't need as much torque multiplication by the ring and pinion as the manual.
     
  19. garybuick

    garybuick Time Traveler

    thats hard to grasp. if the rpms going the trans are the same and the rpms coming out are the same, where does all the magic energy come from ?
     
  20. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    John's information is completely accurate, and I wasn't intending on picking out a slight "mis-step" for scrutiny.
    It was more for pointing out that "coupling" or "efficiency" in mechanical terms might not always relate to running the engine in it's most efficient range with the vehicle's aerodynamic characteristics in certain speed ranges in certain air conditions and/or how the vehicle is used.

    It's because of always having to simplify very complex mechanical relationships that the general public makes assumptions such as "lower rpm gets better mileage" , without respect to load, vacuum readings and potential vaporization differences related to air velocity and how that might affect burn characteristics or actual stoichiometry (as a result of the aforementioned...), along with a million other variables that are impossible to quantify without incredibly long math formulae and the understanding behind each aspect........................

    Truth is the vehicle determines the mileage potential with it's many variables much more than the engine's size or final gear ratio.

    An example of how things aren't always what they seem and more than what meets the eye...
    I was tuning and logging for mileage changes on a vehicle that already got fantastic mileage for what it was.
    I could maintain it's best mileage from 65-87 mph in top gear (1:1).
    It was using more fuel at 87 but spending less time running (100+ mile trips), therefore...same mileage. (this is covered in OEM type engineering books)
    Traveling faster than that was reaching diminishing returns with regards to aero, specific to that vehicle. (other vehicles tested differently)
    I also learned that when driving 50-60 mph that if I simply went down a gear (thm400) I would maintain slightly less than best, but much, much better than mpg's in top gear at that speed.
    I forget the mechanical efficiency loss of the THM400 in 2nd gear vs. D, but the basic idea is that you are always trading off diminishing returns.
    The same thing happened logging info across large temperature spreads. Air density and stoich vs. coolant temps and other factors didn't always go as suspected.
     

Share This Page