#1  
Old 09-19-2021, 06:16 PM
Poncho60 Poncho60 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern Ill
Posts: 913
Default 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  
Old 09-19-2021, 06:50 PM
steve25's Avatar
steve25 steve25 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 14,633
Default

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  
Old 09-19-2021, 07:13 PM
Poncho60 Poncho60 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern Ill
Posts: 913
Default

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  
Old 09-19-2021, 07:25 PM
steve25's Avatar
steve25 steve25 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 14,633
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 09:21 AM
78w72 78w72 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: iowa
Posts: 4,683
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 09:38 AM
59safaricat 59safaricat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Land of the fee, home of the slave
Posts: 246
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 09:43 AM
78w72 78w72 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: iowa
Posts: 4,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
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.
wasnt sure if there was a dipstick.. if there is its easy to confirm the level.

& 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  
Old 09-20-2021, 10:45 AM
"QUICK-SILVER" "QUICK-SILVER" is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LaFayette Georgia
Posts: 5,512
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 11:57 AM
Bill Hanlon's Avatar
Bill Hanlon Bill Hanlon is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, TX
Posts: 2,349
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 05:22 PM
Schurkey Schurkey is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Seasonally Frozen Wastelands
Posts: 5,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve25 View Post
if there was a way to drain the converter then that would explain the added usage of the fluid!
The original, and the later dual-coupling Hydra-Matic don't have a torque converter. They use a more-prehistoric "fluid coupling"; almost certainly with an easy-access drain plug that the bean counters removed from most torque converters.

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 08:50 PM
Poncho60 Poncho60 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern Ill
Posts: 913
Default

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 09:07 PM
59safaricat 59safaricat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Land of the fee, home of the slave
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
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.

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.
Reply's like this are why 4 speed hydros get a bad rap because people don't understand them. The torus slips at idle, which quickly diminished at very low speeds. This was purposely engineered for an exceptionally smooth startup by the input torus of the fluid coupling running at a slower speed than the engine due to the reduction of the forward gear assembly. Slippage is almost negligible after shifting into 2nd gear. Between this design and the split torque design, these early hydros are documented as being the most efficient automatic transmissions in existence until lockup torque converters came into play in the late 70's/early 80's. The 350/400 transmissions are more INefficient than the first dual band transmission in 1939.

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  
Old 09-20-2021, 10:20 PM
Poncho60 Poncho60 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern Ill
Posts: 913
Default

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  
Old 09-21-2021, 12:43 AM
Jack Gifford's Avatar
Jack Gifford Jack Gifford is offline
formerly 'Pontiac Jack'
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Phelps, NY 14532
Posts: 10,176
Default

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  
Old 09-21-2021, 02:24 AM
59safaricat 59safaricat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Land of the fee, home of the slave
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho60 View Post
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
What exactly gives an automatic transmission "Hot Rod" appeal? If you ask most, they'll say harsh shifting. Any automatic transmission can be modified to accomplish that. Some even do that by themselves through bad designs, like the tendency of braking accumulator springs (AODE/4R70W).

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  
Old 09-21-2021, 12:37 PM
Schurkey Schurkey is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Seasonally Frozen Wastelands
Posts: 5,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
Reply's like this are why 4 speed hydros get a bad rap because people don't understand them.
Everything I know about the Hydra-Matic, I learned here:
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...istory-part-1/

That same web site offers insight into several other transmission designs. VERY recommended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
The torus slips at idle,
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:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
which quickly diminished at very low speeds. This was purposely engineered for an exceptionally smooth startup by the input torus of the fluid coupling running at a slower speed than the engine due to the reduction of the forward gear assembly.
Yes. The "big" fluid coupling runs at less than engine speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
Slippage is almost negligible after shifting into 2nd gear.
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:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
Between this design and the split torque design, these early hydros are documented as being the most efficient automatic transmissions in existence until lockup torque converters came into play in the late 70's/early 80's.
"Documented" by who, and when? Given that Studebaker and Packard each had production automotive transmissions with lockup torque converters (Packard in '49, Stude in '50) I think your claim is not valid.

https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...up-converters/

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
The 350/400 transmissions are more INefficient than the first dual band transmission in 1939. GM switched to the Turbo Hydros because they were simpler, lighter, and cheaper to manufacture.
Absolutely simpler, lighter, cheaper, in large part due to having torque multiplication in the converter versus needing an additional very-low first gear, an additional planetary assembly, and all the friction material and control mechanism to shift four gears instead of three. Also smoother-shifting. And more-durable, even with much-longer service intervals. With hugely-increased torque capacity. In short, more sophisticated, even though they may be less-complex.

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:
Originally Posted by 59safaricat View Post
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).
Ford licensed the Simpson gearset first, then sat on it for years. Chrysler put that concept into production first.

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  
Old 09-22-2021, 01:16 AM
Jack Gifford's Avatar
Jack Gifford Jack Gifford is offline
formerly 'Pontiac Jack'
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Phelps, NY 14532
Posts: 10,176
Default

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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	lakester&gmc.jpg
Views:	131
Size:	81.4 KB
ID:	573565  

__________________
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  
Old 09-22-2021, 02:30 PM
MarkS57's Avatar
MarkS57 MarkS57 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Flemington, NJ
Posts: 575
Default

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  
Old 09-28-2021, 06:38 PM
Poncho60 Poncho60 is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern Ill
Posts: 913
Default

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  
Old 09-29-2021, 09:29 PM
59safaricat 59safaricat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Land of the fee, home of the slave
Posts: 246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
Everything I know about the Hydra-Matic, I learned here:
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...istory-part-1/

That same web site offers insight into several other transmission designs. VERY recommended.
Yeah, I've been to that website. Some good info there but some of it is incorrect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
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.
The coupling momentary slips which quickly dissipates above idle once RPM increases. It does not slip and slide through the entire gear. The dual coupling in my '59 takes off quicker in first gear than a 400 behind a later 389, which also had a significant increase in torque/horsepower for later years compared to the earlier 389 in my '59 Catalina.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
The "Torque Splitting" feature also included would minimize slip, it functioned in 3rd and 4th.
Torque splitting occurs in 2nd and 4th. The rear band is engaged in 3rd gear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
"Documented" by who, and when? Given that Studebaker and Packard each had production automotive transmissions with lockup torque converters (Packard in '49, Stude in '50) I think your claim is not valid.
There are several articles where it was mentioned that these old hydros were efficient. Here's one of them:

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:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
Also smoother-shifting. And more-durable, even with much-longer service intervals. With hugely-increased torque capacity. In short, more sophisticated, even though they may be less-complex.
A 400 does not shift smoother than a dual coupling transmission, I can guarantee you that! It sounds like you never driven one. It's smoother than the earlier dual band though. The durability increase was mainly due to better fluids. A dual band needs occasional band adjustments just like a 350/400. The dual coupling only has one band (rear) and generally requires no adjustment throughout the life of the transmission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schurkey View Post
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.
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

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:10 AM.

 

About Us

The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.

 




Copyright © 2017