what tranneys fit a 1964 Dinamic 88 convertable with a 394? THis is the tranney that has reverse at the very fasr right. I don't care what type of tranney I get - thats is to say I am not a supper traditionalists, just anything that will fit that i can find somewhere - cheeply hopfully.

Thanks Jodypackerfan1@yahoo.com

 

The transmission in your car is a Slim Jim Rotohydramatic. IMHO they aren't good transmissions. If you want to put a different transmission in your car you will have to use an adapter plate.

http://www.forwhatyouneed.com/tansonp1.html
http://www.transmissionadapters.com/index.htm

 

Thanks Man - this is very helpfull especially the loinks - I love this site

 

Thanks for these 2 links, one is nearby. I didn't even know they existed.

 

You will have to modify the transmission mounts, but if you have a Slim Jim that isn't working right it will cost as much to modify a TH 400 and install it with new mounts as it would to have the Slim Jim rebuilt by someone that knows what they are doing.

 

Good tranny but doesn't it have the same idiot gear selection pattern as the Slim Jim? More than one Hydra-matic with that gear selection setup has caused its own self destruct or unexpectedly smacking the car behind.

 

I hate the gear selector pattern but let's be fair, if many Slim Jim transmissions have survived 46 to 49 years they really can't be all that bad.
To my knowledge the Slim Jim's in my two '62 Starfires have never been opened up beyond a filter change, one has over 100k miles on it the other just less than 90K miles.

 

That "pattern" was used with all GM automatics from '40 to '64?

Self destruct? Explain how that might happen.

Like the Fords and Audis with their PRND "gear selection pattern"?

Norm

 

[quote=88 coupe;90701]That "pattern" was used with all GM automatics from '40 to '64?


Self destruct? Explain how that might happen.


Yanking the gear selector at speed into reverse rather then low (example use for slowing down on a steep hill. Don't ask how I know this. Meaning the setup was prone to misuse

 

As I said, "in my opinion" the Slim Jim is a piece of junk. I will always suggest for Olds owners to replace their Slim Jim with a TH 400 or more modern transmission.

 

The "reverse blocker" was put there to prevent that from happening.

Norm

 

Norm,

I have driven several of these cars were the blocker has either ceased to function ( my own being the first) I would guess that has been a common problem. I don't have the problem anymore since I switched to a turbo 400

 

If it was, I would have expected it to be well known in the Olds community, insurance companies, and trans rebuilders.

Norm

 

Hmmm, Turboglide and Flightpitch/3t = PRNDG, Powerglide (58 up) PRNDL, weren't these GM transmissions???????

57 and back Powerglides, Dynaslows, dual path drive, and hydramatic variety transmissions (up to 64 (not inclusive of ST300, ST400, TH400) are the culprits.

For the price of a mechanical stop (raise handle to get to R) on the shift quadrant mechanism, GM could have saved themselves and their customers alot of heartache, and $$$$.


BTW: The reverse blocker did not work below 20MPH according to my manuals, so it is possible to get into R below those speeds, and have "destruction by driver".

 

Exceptions noted.

My '63 manual said 13MPH. I would expect that it would have been lower, if the trans could not handle it.

Not likely, with the tires of the day.

I am more curious about possible causes of a "shift blocker" failure.

Norm

 

The story from the factory was that the factory motor pool had a lot more reverse "accidents" when they put PRNDL Jetaways in 1964 Cutlass and Jetstar 88 instead of PNDSLR HydraMatics, and everyone being used to 25 years of HydraMatics would instinctively pull the selector lever all the way down and nail it to back out of a parking space.

Word was they replaced a whole lot of chain link fencing that year...

There was also a tech bulletin sent out about Jetaway and HydraMatic neutral start switches getting mixed up on the assembly line. Seems Jetaways would start in Reverse, and HydraMatics in Drive with no reverse lights for either.

Now, you wanna talk about a piece of junk- TurboGlide/Flight Pitch. Even though the operating principles spawned the TurboHydraMatic, Buick spent 4 years trying to get the kinks out of it and finally abandoned it in favor of Triple Turbine Dynaflow without that Grade Retard mess. Chevy dealers changed out a lot of TurboGlides under warranty. They were every bit as bad if not worse than Roto HydraMatics.

Once GM Detroit Transmission figured out that a torque converter and planetary gear sets could co-exist, they finally caught up to what Ford, Chrysler and Borg-Warner had been doing for 15 years- torque multiplication thru separate and distinct gear ranges.

 

Hmmm, 4 years of triple turbine, nope, it existed as a flightpitch without the rear pump for 1959 only. And it did have the grade retard feature. From 1960 through 63, Buick used the TWIN TURBINE dynaflow which had little difference from the 56-59 units. The main difference was the open driveshaft starting in 1961.

I happen to own a 58 Roadmaster with original Flightpitch transmission, and I am impressed with the performance. Seems these transmissions just needed more low end torque.

The Turboglide was another similar transmission, but it DID NOT have a multiple position stator as Buick had. Turboglide had two positions, low and high angle, with high angle as passing gear. My father had one in a 59 Chevy wagon with 283 and it was dog slow. I was told the Turboglide was cheaply built compared to the Flightpitch/3t. (Our torque converter died at 16k, and I eventually swapped it out in favor of a 3 speed stick.

Yes, GM had several engine and transmission combos that in all those years only the old hydramatic had performance in mind. But Buick and Chevy tried the CVT design without major success. Now days CVT is pretty common, and yes it does work very similar.

 

I will take the roto in my 64 Olds 98 over the TH200 that WAS in my 86 Monte Carlo SS anyday. When i yanked the 200 from the monte I took a sledg hammer to it out of fustration. The monte now has a 350/350 combo and a blown 7.5 rear. Don't get me started on that wonderful peice of crap too lol.

 

Get a hold of Tony at Ross Racing Engines. He has TH400/350's Made for the early rocket engines. He also makes aluminum heads.

 

I'm with Olds 64 on the RotoHydramatic 375 being junk. It is a durable transmission as far as longevity, but its performance is just junk. Sloppiest shifting thing you can ever drive, along with horsepower robbing and wasted at take off. I had a 64 Grand Prix with a 389 and Slim Jim. The motor sound mean and nansty but the thing was a sled. Converted to T350 and bam, brought the whole car to life and it was truely like a totally differant vehicle and able to put the power to the wheels once in for all.

 

Hi There.
You are discussing switching from slim jim to TH400 with adapter kit.
I got one question, is there a need for any work at the sheet metal in tunnel? TH400 is bigger then the slim jim so I thought the space maybe isn´t enough.

 

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...-394-pics.html

This thread has pics of what had to be done to a 64 Starfire to put a 700 transmission in it. I think a 350 or 400 will be similar.

 

Nice find on the post Rraider. Sure seems like alot of work. Of course anything worth doing usually is. Mayebe I am out of line since I have never done this type of sheetmetal work, but it would also seem easier to me just to go to the junkyard and cut out a tunnel from another vehicle. Of course cut it out way to big, then when you get it home lay it in the project vehicle and see what you got. Also be able to have plenty of overlap to weld it in. I must have gotten lucky on my 64 Grand Prix converstion from Slim Jim to T350. Only problem I had, was being able to get the dipstick in, so I ended up using a flexible one like a Lokar. Didn't have to cut a thing, and just so happened I was able to go the junkyard and get a driveline out of an Olds station wagon and the driveshaft worked without modification. Other question I have, just for knowing purpose, this adapter kit, how does that affect the balancing of the motor if at all?

 

OK, I see quite a lot of work with the floor/tunnel! There isn’t a possibility to lower the engine in the rear end get the tranny lower with no work at the tunnel?
Has anyone tried something like that?

 

I am not sure that would be a good idea Swed. You would have to also modify linkage, and and driveline geometry would be differant too. You are right, it does appear to be alot of work. I think it would be easier to cut a tunnel or out of a late 60's Olds that is already set up for T400 and cut it out and weld it in. Actaully could probably get by without welding it in. Use a sealer, a few sheet metal screws and spray the seems with the rubberized undercoat. I'd image it would last just fine. Just repeating, its only a suggestion and I have never done that type of work, so what do I know. If it were me, that is the avenue I'd take.

 

The problem with the adapters that you buy extend the transmission back further into the fire wall. The one that Ross racing engine makes does not do this. His have the bell housing cut off and he machines a new housing out of billet aluminum and bolts it on. He also uses the original side mounts.
Pat

 

Very True KCAT. Although the trans is pricey from Ross, with all the saved labor and headache, I think I'd be more willing to go that route. The trans would always be rebuildable in the event you ever wore it out. Looks to me, they are just doing some cutting on the housing to change the bell housings it all. I am sure there would be some modificaitons to the flexplate also.

 

Take a look at a stock TH400 and compare Ross's conversion you will see how much smaller it is.
Pat