<Derek Anthony>

Is the two speed Jetaway a good transmission in the 64 Jetstar? Is it different than the powerglide? I personally do not like the Hydramatic used on the larger models.

Terrifying Toronado

Yes it's good, not as tough as a powerglide but will do fine behind your 330?
Just service it like you would any automatic.
I had one in a '64 F-85 and it was also a switch-pitch, don't know if yours is or not.

Mike

BTW it has nothing in common with a powerglide so don't let someone sell you a pg filter.

PetChemMan

I had a 1964 Jetstar 88 with the 330 CID engine and the two speed automatic, and the transmission always performed well. As pointed out in the other post, the Jetstar 88 had the drivetrain from the F-85 , but in the larger Jetstar body. The Jetstar 1, on the other hand, was the large body with the heavy duty drivetrain, which included the 394 CID engine, 3 speed auto transmission, heavy duty rear axle, and larger brakes all around. The 3 speed Hydra-Matic in the Jetstar 1 and other full sized Oldsmobiles was a somewhat odd transmission. Sometimes referred to as the "Slim Jim", it had three forward gears plus a fluid coupling that gave some additional torque multiplication temporarily in first gear. The total effective first gear ratio was 3.56 to 1, while second gear dropped way down to a ratio of 1.56 to 1. Coupled with rear axle ratios as high as 3.42 , the big Olds cars were very lively in first gear up to about 40 mph, after which time things settled down considerably when second gear kicked in. Still, the 3 speed Hydra-Matics could take a lot of punishment. The factory caused some confusion in describing the 3 speed Hydra-Matic, calling it a 4-S model, which implied it was a 4 speed. However, "second" gear is actually first gear minus the torque multiplication of the fluid coupling, which quickly ceases to multiply seconds after the car starts rolling. Very confusing, but you only hear the transmission shift twice, as a three speed will do. I have one of the 4-S Hydra-Matics in my 62 Starfire.

[ December 15, 2005: Message edited by: PetChemMan ]

[ December 15, 2005: Message edited by: PetChemMan ]</p>