[PITTSBURGH 64]

Steve B. The only thing the Slim-Jim has in common with the 4 speed is the name and the shifter pattern window.
Slim Jim = YUK!

[PITTSBURGH 64]

Tom S. Looking in old issues on Hot Rod, I see there were a few hydro builders like C&O Hydro, Cal Hydro, Pounden Hydro.

Is it true that three speed sticks are stronger then four speed sticks?

[tom s]

back then some racers like the 3 speed HD trans that pontiac offered.Hayden was one of them.I never ran one.I think there is a pic of my car in Petes book with the Engine Masters name on the door.Tom

[Stuart]

I used to have a '61 Bonneville convertible with a super Hydramatic. It had the four barrel carb engine, but I put an 068 cam in it and it had a mild port job on the heads. That thing would really jump off the line, and it cruised real nice out on the highway. Maybe I never got the linkage adjusted just right, but the shifts from one gear to the next were really soft.

Wish I still had that car. It went through several owners, and the last I heard a guy out in Long Island got it and is doing a frameoff restoration. At least it ended up in the hands of someone who could do it right.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by PITTSBURGH 64

Is it true that three speed sticks are stronger then four speed sticks?

Rick Gonser told me once they had a lot of problems with the early cast iron case T-10 four speeds holding up to drag racing, and the three speeds were a lot stronger. When I bought my car it had only 42,000 miles on the odometer but the original transmission had been replaced at least once (there was a 1962 date code on the case of the transmission that was in it) and first, second and third gears in that one were pretty shelled out.

[Jack Gifford]

Steve Barcak- "Hydrostick" was merely what people called a beefed-up Dual-Range Hydramatic. Like any other automatic, the mods include higher line pressure, higher clutch plate counts and different friction materials, enlarging select passages, valve body changes, furnace-brazed torus members, etc. What's surprising, is that most of the crucial "hard parts" of a Hydramatic (shafts, planetary sets, etc.) were strong enough in stock form to reliably handle the abuse of AA/GS machines! "Full manual" valve body mods were usually somewhat different from today's items, in that they only provided full manual control of upshifts. With the selector in first gear, the trans would stay in first all day. With second selected, it would never shift above 2nd, but as you slowed to about an idle in second, it would downshift to first- same sort of deal for 3rd & 4th selections, downshifting to prevent engine stalling.

By the way- everybody today trash-talks the slim-jim. You visited Don Bennett in Texas- didn't he have the original slim-jim when he won the Nationals and Winter Nationals in '62? And I noticed recently that magazine tests of new Pontiacs back then had nothing but praise for that transmission.

[Bill Hanlon]

If anyone wants to build up a Dual-Range Hydro like those that Jack is referring to above, you might try finding a copy of this book. It goes into great detail on performance modifications from mild to wild.

I've got a copy that I'd loan out for a respectable deposit.

Even though GM quit using the Dual-Range Hydra-Matic in cars during the 1956 model year, they continued to use it in trucks until at least 1962. And Rolls-Royce used this transmission until 1966.

[Bill Eveland]

I know the 61-63 had a trans mounted starter, but is it still possible to still use that trans with a block mounted starter engine? 64 and up. Is the offset of the flywheel differant? It would be easy enough to enlarge the starter hole if the nosecone was larger on the block mounted starter.

[Poncho60]

If I remember correctly, the T-10 was just a further development of the T-85 HD 3 speed trans-----4 speeds were crammed into the same case. Also, I think that Pontiac lost a NASCAR race in the early 60s because high gear failed on one of these with just a few laps to go.

I obviously know little compared to what's been posted since I opened this thread, but I thought the major knock on the super-hydro was that you really couldn't get the hard shifts out of it like everyone wants for increased performance. On mine the last shift is smooth as glass, but I do like the performance in the lower ranges.

[Steve Barcak]

I appreciate the 'schooling' everyone. Now, I know some but, not as much as I would like to know.
Let's review and verify, OK?

Can we positively verify a few things so there is no confusion?

Verification question number 1.
A 'dual coupling' trans is a '56 and prior ( '55, '56?) correct? Bill Hanlon above states-"Even though GM quit using the Dual-Range Hydra-Matic in cars during the 1956 model year,".....

If this is true, that would be interpeted as NOT being the hydro trans this topic on covering? Please verify

Verification question number 2. Actually, this is a statement. the 'slim jim' was used in GP, Catalina and Ventura only 1961-4. Statement refers to Pontiacs, I know some Olds had them as well.
As Jack said, yes, I have met with Don Bennet several times now. He worked at Johnson Pontiac in Iowa with Arnie Beswick, drag and street raced several Pontiacs. 2 of these cars were slim jim equipped. Cars were a '62 and '63 GP. The '62 had a 348hp and did indeed win the '62 Winternationals and the US Nationals with that car. Don thought the slim jim was just fine. He is the only one I know who likes them.
As for me, I own several dozen of these era cars here at Pontiac Heaven. I have driven a few with the slim jim and I do not care for them. I have yet to get a hydro equipped car running for a test drive.
This is also a different trans than the dual coupling and the hydro.

Verification question number 3- so according to Jack, a "Hydro stick" is a '56-'64 Hydro trans that is/was 'souped up' so to speak.

Bill Eveland- I should be able to answer your question on the block starter. My guess is yes you can. I say this because many Pontiac blocks in '63 and everyone I have seen in '64 had provision to mount a starter even though they used a trans mounted one.

My yard is an excellent reference 'library'

What a great thread!

Thanks,
Steve Barcak www.pontiacheaven.org

"Real Pontiacs only....no corporate nonsense!"

[Bill Eveland]

Thanks Steve, initially in this thread I was thinking only the 64 version out of the 61-64 transmissions would work on the newer blocks?

[60man]

Originally Posted by Bill Eveland

Thanks Steve, initially in this thread I was thinking only the 64 version out of the 61-64 transmissions would work on the newer blocks?

Sort of true....
The 61 up block grew top ears..
BUT....the dear old Hydro had a "bell housing" that acted like an adapter plate..
Hell I used to drive a Chevy 6cyl. Postal truck (62 I think) that used a Hydro instead of a "Glide...
When I worked on a Army Test site we used a Duce-and-a half for transportation.
It had like a 12 speed auto tranny. Guy at the motor pool told me it was just several Hydros in tandem...like and aux. trans.....GM got good use of the old Hydros..
We raced a 60 C Stock/auto Ventura along with a C stock (Arapaho)and only problem with out mods was when fluid got hot some times it would not make 4th gear change.....we figuered that out though...Ford fluid and a few 5/16" flat washers in the front pump regulator valve...

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Steve Barcak

I appreciate the 'schooling' everyone. Now, I know some but, not as much as I would like to know.
Let's review and verify, OK?

Can we positively verify a few things so there is no confusion?

Verification question number 1.
A 'dual coupling' trans is a '56 and prior ( '55, '56?) correct? Bill Hanlon above states-"Even though GM quit using the Dual-Range Hydra-Matic in cars during the 1956 model year,".....

The Dual Coupling started it's life in 1956. The Dual Range started it's life in 1952. The Single range was the Hydramatic 1951-earlier. The main difference between the Single and Dual Range was the shift quardrant. The Single Range read" NDLR, the Dual Range has N 'D'LR (bascially NDSLR). The Single and Dual Range are the same basic trans. The Dual Coupling was a different trans (based on Dual Range engineering), but with so many complaints of hard shifting, GM removed the front clutch and both shifting bands. So instead of the front clutch, a 2nd fluid coupling was used for smoothness, along with 2 sprags and an overunning clutch and band. The Dual Coupling has PNDSLR shift quadrant in 64 and PN 'D' LR from 61-63.

If this is true, that would be interpeted as NOT being the hydro trans this topic on covering? Please verify

Verification question number 2. Actually, this is a statement. the 'slim jim' was used in GP, Catalina and Ventura only 1961-4. Statement refers to Pontiacs, I know some Olds had them as well.
As Jack said, yes, I have met with Don Bennet several times now. He worked at Johnson Pontiac in Iowa with Arnie Beswick, drag and street raced several Pontiacs. 2 of these cars were slim jim equipped. Cars were a '62 and '63 GP. The '62 had a 348hp and did indeed win the '62 Winternationals and the US Nationals with that car. Don thought the slim jim was just fine. He is the only one I know who likes them.
As for me, I own several dozen of these era cars here at Pontiac Heaven. I have driven a few with the slim jim and I do not care for them. I have yet to get a hydro equipped car running for a test drive.
This is also a different trans than the dual coupling and the hydro.

The Single Range, Dual Range, Dual Coupling and the Roto AKA Slim-Jim were ALL Hydramatics as they were produced by the Hydramatic plant. The Roto was actually an Olds design, according to John Sawruk, which explains why all 61-64 Olds had Rotos. Even the 61-63 F-85 had a smaller version of the Roto called the RHM 240 or the Model 5.


Verification question number 3- so according to Jack, a "Hydro stick" is a '56-'64 Hydro trans that is/was 'souped up' so to speak.

The Hydrostick is a souped up version of the Single or Dual Range, not a Dual coupling.

Bill Eveland- I should be able to answer your question on the block starter. My guess is yes you can. I say this because many Pontiac blocks in '63 and everyone I have seen in '64 had provision to mount a starter even though they used a trans mounted one.

My yard is an excellent reference 'library'

What a great thread!

Thanks,
Steve Barcak www.pontiacheaven.org

"Real Pontiacs only....no corporate nonsense!"

Hopefully I didn't screw anything up! Let me know if I did.

[PITTSBURGH 64]

I've never seen so much hydro info. I'm loving this.

I once had a 64 Grand Prix 421 slim-jim and it did pull like hell out of the hole and was the first automatic I ever owned that go scratch going into second. I remember almost staying up with a then new crazy KZ.
That being said when I drove my first 64 Bonneville, it was so much faster than the 421 G.P. even though it had a stock 389.

Check out the cool Hurst Shifter I got from a real nice Olds guy named Glenn that wanted me to have it because I love hydros so much. When I received it I was almost in shock at the fantastic condition its in.
I want to install it without the console. I hope to pick up the Hurst base that they sold for console-less installs.

[Steve Barcak]

That Hurst shifter is "BOSS"! I remember seeing that shifter in a full page ad in several hot rod type magazines from around '62 in my magazine collection.

On the first page Bill E asked about how to identify these different trans.
Here are some pics of the '61-'64 roto-hydramatic or "slim jim". This trans did not use a thin, lightweight flywheel/flexplate. They used a heavy, cast iron flywheel that resembles a manual trans unit. There was a thin spring equipped plate and no external converter. Obviously, there must be some kind of converter inside.
Here are 4 pics taken today. I show 1 pic with the flywheel next to the plate, the other with the plate on the flywheel and then to pics of the trans.

Also, I just sold a '60 engine out of a Bonneville. When I pull that eng and trans (probably next week), I can also photograph that trans too if you like. It would be a '60 Hydro.
Gosh, I am really itching to drive one of these things. I have a '61 Bonneville I have had for about 10 years. I have never started it. I was told it runs. I may go out and try to fire it up. If it runs, I may be able to test drive it.

Pittsburgh- Who built your trans? You mentioned how much you had in it and how much the kit cost and who you bought the kit from but, who did the work?

Steve Barcak www.pontiacheaven.org

"Real Pontiacs only...no corporate nonsense!"

[stevep]

The Roto has an internal fluid coupling. The aluminum coupling (torus) bowl is the main cause of Roto failure (cracking).

The plate that you refer to is called the damper plate. It usually cracks and the springs can get loose and than the input shaft will wobble and cause a front leak.

[PITTSBURGH 64]

Steve B,
Man our you lucky to just have all these parts just laying around. I'd never leave that place!

The guy that did my tranny is a customer of mine that owns a tranny shop. He takes good care of me because I take good care of him on his electric work.
One day I'm working on his house and I notice his shirt says Wiegand transmission. So I asked him if he would rebuild a transmission from a 64 Pontiac, he says "is it a Grand Prix or Bonneville cause there's a big difference". I knew I had the right person at that point. Turns out he's 62 and use to work for Pontiac re-building transmissions.
I asked him how hard it is to rebuild one of these he took one look at my car and said "you could do it but they are a little complicated. Get a junked hydro and practice".
He also said "the Slim Jim was a four speed too"...And was real sure about it. That kind of threw me off. I always thought they were three speeds and still sware they are.

Here's how mine sounds pulling out lightly going through first second and third. Shifts fast enough for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARX3pYolAQ

Our own Steve P is the best though. Even my transmission guy didn't know the 60 Tri-Power governor trick!

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by stevep

Hopefully I didn't screw anything up! Let me know if I did.

Looks 100% to me- thanks a lot for "filling in the gaps".

Jeff- the 'Roto' is a three-speed. Beautiful Hurst shifter you've got there!

For anyone who didn't see my "No-compromise shifter" thread a while back, here's a picture of the shifter I've built to use with my HydroStick in the '59 GMC. It has positive gates for each gear change, but the button on top moves the right-hand gates away to allow shifting directly between any positions (from N to R, etc.) in one movement. It will mount just below the instrument cluster, to the right of the steering wheel, leaving me full three-passenger use of the bench seat. It's 100% stainless and aluminum- I did the sides in "machine turned" pattern, since the instrument panel is a sort-of-machine-turned finish. Someday, I need to find someone to computer-cut a blue mylar overlay for it- my hand-cut one isn't very artistic.

[stevep]

Well the Roto can be considered 2 things:

1- A 4 speed, as it was originally described.
2- A 3 speed with a 2 stage 1st.

I'll go with # 2.

The 1-2 shift takes place when the multiplier catches up with the torus (or vice versa). You do not feel a gear change, but a gear change does occur. So when you feel a Roto upshift, you feel 2-3 and 3-4.

Jack, that is some shifter! You should be very proud of it and I like the indicator just the way it is.

[PITTSBURGH 64]

Jack, that's a work of art!