About Us

DADZZ64 · 02-22-2005, 03:08 AM

hello quick question iam putting a 1974 455 into my 1964 pontiac bonneville i would like to use the original tranny that was in the car
(super hydromatic) will this tranny bolt right up to the 455 with no problems just wondering because the 1964 super hydromatic tranny had the starter bolted on them ...

DADZZ64 · 02-22-2005, 03:08 AM

hello quick question iam putting a 1974 455 into my 1964 pontiac bonneville i would like to use the original tranny that was in the car
(super hydromatic) will this tranny bolt right up to the 455 with no problems just wondering because the 1964 super hydromatic tranny had the starter bolted on them ...

66bonne · 02-22-2005, 06:47 AM

In my humble opinion I think that "Slim Jim" tranny will have a hard time staying together with the power/torque put out by that 455. You may want to consider changing the tranny over to a TH400. Seems to me that someone recently posted on this forum about putting a TH400 in a 64. Wish I could be of more help. Good luck with your project.

JDOROUR · 02-22-2005, 08:31 AM

I am not sure but I think the Bonneville had the Super Hydo in 1964. The Catalina had the Roto-Hydromatic.
The old Super Hydromatic is a good trans and should be able to put up with a 455 if you drive it in normal day to day use. I don't think I would go racing with it.

I have never done this install and do not know what you will run into but I think it will work.

Floyd Hand · 02-22-2005, 10:02 AM

All 1961 to 64 Cat and GP's used the Slim-Jims. The 61-64 Star Chiefs and Bonnys got the 4-speed Hydros. Yes, the Slim-Jims were weak but the Hydros were strong and will hold up to the 455's. Back in the 60's most of the supercharged gas coupes(Stone-Wood-Cook,just to name one) ran the Hydros. From 1960 back to I believe 1948 all Pontiacs with autos used the 4-speed Hydros.

BVR421 · 02-22-2005, 08:07 PM

I ran into issues with the fluid coupling to crankhub interface. The trans was hanging out by about a 1/4" and pulling in with the trans/block bolts would have ruined the front pump. I was also using headers and the early starter interferes. The solution to that is an expensive reproduction SD nose cone that flips the solinoid upside down. Stock manifolds should be no problem.
I never finished this, I bought a th400 and at that point it was all very straight forward with minor fabrications to mount, crossmember and linkage, all went very smoothly.
The issue with the SuperHydro fluid coupling nose cone and the crank hub is critical but I cant tell you how best to deal with that.

Jack Gifford · 02-23-2005, 12:23 AM

The '56-'63 4-speed Strato-Flight Hydramatic was, as Floyd Hand said, a fairly sturdy transmission. But not as sturdy as the '49-'55 Dual-Range Hydramatics which formed the basis for all Hydrosticks, as used in the gassers. The Strato-Flight is a dual-coupling transmission, which cannot be modified to shift hard and fast.

Jack Gifford · 02-23-2005, 12:29 AM

Sorry- I meant to say '56-'64.
Bolting a '49-'55 Hydramatic to a later crank requires chamfering of the O.D. of the flywheel flange of the crank; perhaps it's the same deal with the '56-'64, I've never done it.

stevep · 02-23-2005, 03:48 PM

I know that the front cover(with the ring gear) on a Super Hydramatic was different for 64. I believe 61-63 was 1 type and 64 was the other.
The register on the 64 crank should be the same up to the mid 70's.

Jon Wood · 02-23-2005, 06:05 PM

I still haven't had time to do the exact measurements, but it looks to me like the crank hub is the same, but maybe the mounting rail for the tranny puts the bellhousing in a different axial position? I've got the 455 out of the car, so hopefully one of these weekends I will be able to make some emasurements and give you the final story...

Jack Gifford · 02-23-2005, 11:18 PM

For whatever little it's worth- I discovered a difference in the axial position of the crank flange relative to the rear block face when putting a '68 400 block where a '59 was- I had to mill .220" off the back of the '68 block. But that sounds like just the opposite of what bvr421 ran into, so I'm just "muddying the water". Sorry.

Jon Wood · 02-24-2005, 09:33 PM

What you are describing is EXACTLY the problem I had, although I have not yet found the exact dimensions. I am planning on machining a spacer to put on the end of the crankshaft. Thanks for the verification...
It's nice to know I'm not going crazy!

Jon Wood · 02-26-2005, 10:20 PM

Piits,
When I do get around to making a shim for the flexplate, it's not that hard to make 2 rather than just 1...

Jon Wood · 02-27-2005, 11:43 PM

The shims are there to ensure at least 0.015" clearacne between flexplate and front Torus before being bolted. The problem we have is too much clearance between the two, more like .2". One simple solution could be to use precision washers between the two, but that could screw up the balance. I think shimming between the flexplate and the flywheel hub is the best bet... Hopefully, if I have time, I can make some measurments and turn a spacer on the lathe. Unfortunately, my senior design project at San Jose State takes priority.

Menu

About Us