FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Super hydro fluid question
The 60 hydro manual says to initially refill the trans w 8qts and then top it off after warming it up. Manual says it should take about 9 quarts to fill after draining the pan & front coupling. That sound about right? I had a shop drain the pan, put in a new filter, and drain the front coupling (?) . Pretty sure they overfilled trans and now I'm trying to figure out how much to remove. I'm guessing they dumped in about 11 qts!
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Your guessing!
What does your bill from them say?
__________________
Wernher Von Braun warned before his retirement from NASA back in 1972, that the next world war would be against the ETs! And he was not talking about 1/8 or 1/4 mile ETs! 1) 1940s 100% silver 4 cup tea server set. Two dry rotted 14 x 10 Micky Thompson slicks. 1) un-mailed in gift coupon from a 1972 box of corn flakes. Two pairs of brown leather flip flops, never seen more then 2 mph. Education is what your left with once you forget things! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bill didn't say. I gave them a case of fluid (12qts) and only got 1 back. I'm not going to get into a discussion about the shop and what they did or didn't do. Wont be going back there and just need to get things resolved on my own.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
All I can say is if they over filled your trans by 2 Qts you’ed be knowing about it because the trans would not shift right!
I don’t know much about those early Trans, but if there was a way to drain the converter then that would explain the added usage of the fluid!
__________________
Wernher Von Braun warned before his retirement from NASA back in 1972, that the next world war would be against the ETs! And he was not talking about 1/8 or 1/4 mile ETs! 1) 1940s 100% silver 4 cup tea server set. Two dry rotted 14 x 10 Micky Thompson slicks. 1) un-mailed in gift coupon from a 1972 box of corn flakes. Two pairs of brown leather flip flops, never seen more then 2 mph. Education is what your left with once you forget things! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
if youre guessing at the amount they used & dont know how to or have a way to check the actual level... i would call the shop & ask them why they used 11 qts & how they checked/verified the level. either that or drain it all out & start over to get the right amount in there. im not familiar with these trans either but isnt there a way to check the level?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Go for a drive and bring the engine up to normal operating temp. On ruler flat level ground, check the fluid with the transmission in Park with the engine idling. Pull the dipstick out and wipe it clean, reinsert and check the level. If it's overfilled, make them suck the fluid out with a vacuum hand pump and long hose down the dipstick tube.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
& if he doesnt want to go back to the shop as mentioned, he can manually suck out some fluid with a clear hose if a pump isnt available. but yes i would go back & make them do it if they overfilled it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I'm gonna speculate the factory stick is MIA and the OP needed/wanted the right amount put back in so 'full' could be marked on a replacement stick.
Clay |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Method for checking ATF level and amount used in refill can be found on page 31 of "Introducing your 1957 Pontiac" (the glove box owner's manual) here https://www.manualslib.com/manual/13...page=34#manual
__________________
My Pontiac is a '57 GMC with its original 347" Pontiac V8 and dual-range Hydra-Matic. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Of course, when the service interval for fluid changes is as short as it was for the Hydra-Matic transmission and crappy 1940s--1950s fluid, extra drain plugs are a distinct advantage. That's probably why they have four speeds, instead of three--no torque multiplication from a torque converter, just slip from a fluid coupling. The later unit had two fluid couplings--the main one in front, about the same size as a typical torque converter, plus another that took the place of a clutch-pack. About 8" diameter, with a fill-and-drain scheme to mimic a clutch pack applying and releasing. Wanna really blow your mind? GM built 8- and 21-speed variations of the Hydra-Matic for trucks. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto...plex-dead-end/ The original Buick "Dynaflow" (Dynablow, Dynaslow, Dynaslip) was a "torque converter transmission". That is to say, it was not an "automatic" transmission in that there was no automatic gear changes--it started out, and stayed, in "high" gear unless the driver moved the shift lever to "low". The only torque multiplication you got without self-shifting was what the converter could provide. Later versions of the Buick trans were more sophisticated but still didn't move the vehicle all that well. It's no wonder that the Turbo-Hydramatic 400/Super Turbine 400 was such a ginormous improvement in sophistication from the day it debuted in Model Year '64. Last edited by Schurkey; 09-20-2021 at 05:32 PM. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Thx for all the replies. I'm not missing the dipstick and I have all the checking info from the hydro manual, which shows the fluid level positions both cold & hot. I'm going to pump out 2 qts (hopefully) and see what the dipstick reads...then go from there. If it's still reading way high then I'm going to be fairly sure they didn't drain the front coupling.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
GM switched to the Turbo Hydros because they were simpler, lighter, and cheaper to manufacture. The dual band/dual coupling hydros were a true GM design from start to finish by Earl A. Thompson, a Cadillac engineer. The Turbo Hydros were a Simpson based design first licensed by Chrysler (Torqueflite) and later by Ford (Cruise-O-Matic). |
The Following User Says Thank You to 59safaricat For This Useful Post: | ||
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The dual coupling hydro is not exactly a hot rod trans, but with a 3.97 first gear and the 3.08 safety trak in my 60 performance is pretty good IMO
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
SafariCat- thanks for "telling it like it is" about the DualRange Hydramatics. You should have also mentioned the efficiency of the hydro's variable displacement front pump. I don't know if any newer automatics use such a pump?
If you ride in my HydroStick equipped GMC you can observe the advantages of such a pump- around town shifts are not harsh, but at full throttle they're brutal.
__________________
Anybody else on this planet campaign a M/T hemi Pontiac for eleven seasons? ... or has built a record breaking DOHC hemi four cylinder Pontiac? ... or has driven a couple laps of Nuerburgring with Tri-Power Pontiac power?(back in 1967) Last edited by Jack Gifford; 09-21-2021 at 12:53 AM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Jack Gifford For This Useful Post: | ||
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
BTW, the dual band was considered a "Hot Rod" transmission....and it did shift harshly, which was a common complaint that lead to the dual coupling replacement. The dual coupling shifted smooth as silk but was no less efficient. It also didn't require band adjustments since the front band was replaced with a coupling and the rear band was re-engineered and beefed up so it didn't require adjustment after it left the factory. The dual coupling also eliminated "flaring" that was common on the dual band models during gear changes from the front and rear bands engaging/disengaging. If anyone wants to learn about the dual band hydramatics, check out these youtube clips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygkRuwCpKxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5feJm9E2EY&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL6s2DwqH_0&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B-yuAOpBo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsIF07qWWGs&t=685s |
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...istory-part-1/ That same web site offers insight into several other transmission designs. VERY recommended. Yes. I said the fluid coupling slips. My point being, a torque converter slips, but also has the ability to increase torque while it's slipping. In fact, the greater the percentage of slip, the greater the torque multiplication; typically a maximum of 2.x times the input torque when the slippage is 100%. The torque increase is a primary benefit. Slippage in the converter also produces heat, which is "wasted" energy. The fluid coupling slips, therefore it wastes some amount of energy, but does not provide any increased torque. Quote:
That'd depend on throttle position, engine power, and vehicle weight 'n' gearing. The "Torque Splitting" feature also included would minimize slip, it functioned in 3rd and 4th. Quote:
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...up-converters/ Quote:
Nowhere in my previous post did I make claims for "efficiency", although I implied that the Dynablow was...not. The Hydra-Matic had issues with harsh shifts. The "top dog" at Buick called it "Hydra-Jerk". Dynaslip was specifically designed to be utterly smooth, which of course it achieved because there were no shifting gears in normal operation. The tradeoff for Buick was throttle response and losses in the torque converter. GM progressively engineered the harshness out of Hydra-Matic, but removing that tendency toward harshness was a major factor in replacing friction elements with a second fluid coupling in the "Dual-Coupling Hydra-Matic". Which then meant there were two fluid couplings with the potential to slip. For the record, Buick and Chevrolet used a rear suspension design that was enormously heavy (unsprung weight); both Buick and Chevrolet used non-shifting, "Torque Converter" transmissions because a harsh shift would upset the heavy axle causing noise, vibration, etc. This didn't last long at Chevrolet, Powerglide was re-designed from a "pure" Torque Converter transmission to a two-speed automatic also using a simplified torque converter. Buick went through multiple generations of progressively-more-complex Torque Converter transmissions that did not shift, but used multiple converter turbines to drive multiple gear ratios hydraulically/progressively. Then Chevrolet brought back a Triple Turbine Dynaflow-like transmission in Turboglide. And that didn't last long. Quote:
Calling the Turbo-Hydramatics "Simpson based" implies a basic misunderstanding of the work that Simpson did. Simpson designed gear sets; theoretical and prototype designs. The "Simpson" gearset you refer to involves two planetary gearsets sharing a common sun gear. The sun--planet--ring gear ratio can be the same between the two gearsets, or it can be different. The defining factor is the sun gear always turns at the same rpm on both planetary gearsets. Yes, the Torqueflite and C4--C6 also used the "Simpson Gearset", but it's not like any of the gears are interchangeable, or that Ford--Chrysler--GM purchased the gears from "Simpson". The Simpson design for the planetaries does not preclude independent development of the clutchpacks, bands, or one-way clutches that control the way the Simpson gearset actually changes gears. Further, Earl A. Thompson did not invent the fluid coupling. That was "borrowed" from Hermann Föttinger, who patented fluid couplings and torque converters on or before 1905. The Ford Model T used a planetary gearset (or two, or fifteen, I don't know how many.) So--OF COURSE--there was borrowing of technology, both licensed and public-domain inside all of the transmissions; and--really--in pretty-much every consumer product ever developed. Last edited by Schurkey; 09-21-2021 at 01:22 PM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Regarding efficiency of DualRange Hydramatics- very few other passenger car automatics could live without an oil cooler. Even towing a trailer with the race car at 75 mph the HydroStick in my GMC doesn't need a cooler.
__________________
Anybody else on this planet campaign a M/T hemi Pontiac for eleven seasons? ... or has built a record breaking DOHC hemi four cylinder Pontiac? ... or has driven a couple laps of Nuerburgring with Tri-Power Pontiac power?(back in 1967) |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Many, many years ago, when I rebuilt the 389 in my 62 Bonneville, I drained the transmission but not the coupling. I swear it took 8 qts of Dextron II to fill it; don't know why I remember that number so well; I guess it could have been 7 but that's not what I recall. This was 73 and Dextron II was fairly new to the market at the time.
Besides the Bonneville, there was a 62 Cat 389 in our family. I drove both quite a bit. To me, the Super Hydramatic was clearly a superior trans to the Cat's Roto. The S-H 1-2 shift was damn near impossible to feel. Sometimes I think about getting myself another 62 B body & reliving past glory by rebuilding the 389 the same way. If it turns out to be a Cat or GP, I will make the effort to convert to a S-H if at all possible.
__________________
65 Tempest, 400, TH400 86 Fiero SE 2.8 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone have an approximate idea of how much fluid the front coupling holds? I sucked out 3 qts and my dipstick still shows the trans is overfilled.
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic "Controlled Coupling HydraMatic and Roto HydraMatic both have the "Split Torque feature" whereby, in high gear, the torque is divided 40% through the fluid coupling and 60% through mechanical connection, which made these transmissions more efficient than any other automatics before the lock-up torque converter was used." "The shift from third to fourth gear locked the forward gear assembly, producing 1.00:1 transmission.[5] The fluid coupling now only handled about 25 percent of the engine torque, reducing slippage to a negligible amount. The result was a remarkably efficient level of power transfer at highway speeds, something that torque converter equipped automatics could not achieve without the benefit of a converter clutch." Yes, torque converter clutches existed before the 70's but was not widely used until the late 70's/early 80's. Chrysler incorporated a TC in 1978, Ford in 1979 (shaft driven), GM in 1981. Quote:
Nowhere did I mention that Earl invented the fluid coupling. He did invent the first mass prodeced automatic transmission using the fluid coupling, tweaking it to his own design. |
Reply |
|
|