If Olds was "known" to be the test mule for GM then that would explain the first torque converter used in an Oldsmobile. Or more technically....the 2-piece Fluid Cupler.
__________________
Jim "Iron Giant" Fahlin ~ A high performance car is like a guitar, you have to tune it to achieve your best operation and pull ahead of the competition.
Yes, the original HydraMatic was fluid coupling. Mercedes was still using a copy of it into the 1980's. The first Torque Converter trans in mass production was either the Dynaflow (aka "Dynaflush") or Powerglide, I dont remember which. GM divisions did their own transmissions as well as engines in the early days.
When did the Cruise-o & Merc-o matics come out? I also looked into my notes from the auto course I took when the ASEP teacher taught us for a day since our teacher was gone. 1939 was the year of that fluid cupler for GM.
__________________
Jim "Iron Giant" Fahlin ~ A high performance car is like a guitar, you have to tune it to achieve your best operation and pull ahead of the competition.
The original 1951 Ford-O-Matic was a Borg Warner designed unit similar to the one used by Studebaker and others. The Studebaker version was the most advanced, with a torque converter clutch in 1950 that most everyone else didnt have until the 1990's.
The Cruise-O-Matic, Merc-O-Matic and Mile-O-Matic (Edsel) names started in 1958. The Rambler and Studebaker versions were sometimes called Flash-O-Matic, like in my Dad's 1963 Rambler Classic, the first car I drove.
BTW, Dynaflow predates Powerglide by two years, 1948 introduction.
actually the EARLY 3.8s were not real good engines. im talking about the carbureted ones with all the emission garbage. the oiling systems on them was very sub par. only when they were adapted to efi and front wheel drive were they improved to bullet proof status(including grand national/gnx cars). if you were not extremely finicky about oil changes in the early ones from 1962 to 1985 or so the chance of lower end failure was quite high!
jim
Last edited by dartguy699; 01-22-2009 at 11:04 AM.
Reason: spelling
One of the first posts was talking about walking buy a line of Tauruses to get a 93 Buick LeSabre with the 3.8. I agree, it was a good engine. Some had problems prone to the intake/head gaskets (not bad as the 3.1/3.4), but ALL had **** transmissions. But I like those cars.
BUT, my favorite car for the price, for that price and year, would be a 1994 Thunderbird LX with the 4.6 SOHC V8 HO/4R70W. A VERY solid set up. Can't wait to own another one.
There is another almost forgotten Buick/Olds engine that is still in production in England, installed in Land Rovers. Its the all aluminum V-8 introduced in 1961. The Olds version was even available turbocharged.
Jim
Forgotten is right!
This was that 215 CID (3.5L) aluminum block motor that British Leyland bought the rights to from Buick in the early 1960's. The 215 cost more to manufacture than any other motor in the Buick lineup. It just wasn't pratical to keep building. British Leyland used this motor forever in most of their V8 applications.
The 4.3L V6 that Chevy popped out around 1986 was an interesting motor. They chopped two cylinders off the 350. Dodge did the same thing with the 318 to brew that 3.9L motor first used in the 1986 1/2 Dakota. Ford should have did this with the 351 or 302 motors. It would have been a super V6.
Some 4.3L Chevy's had trouble with bad cams and lifters, but the one my uncle got in an '86 Monte Carlo LS lasted over 200k miles w/o any serious trouble.
Speaking of GM, man that diesel 350 sucked and that V8-6-4 motor was also terrible. This was in the ealry 1980's. Worst of all they went into the top of the line Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles of the day!
actually the EARLY 3.8s were not real good engines. im talking about the carbureted ones with all the emission garbage. the oiling systems on them was very sub par. only when they were adapted to efi and front wheel drive were they improved to bullet proof status(including grand national/gnx cars). if you were not extremely finicky about oil changes in the early ones from 1962 to 1985 or so the chance of lower end failure was quite high!
jim
Never heard that one before about the Buick 90 degree V6. I actually have one and it's been NO trouble at all...3800 series 111 FWD.
The original 90 degree had some vibration problems, but Buick fixed that in the 70's...ran smooth ever after.
The Buick V6 in RWD form was also an available engine in Jeeps at one time...the Dauntless V6 it was called and it is a popular swap into Jeeps...for a V6 there is a fair amount of hop up equipment.
It was also named as one of the top ten engine designs and engines of the 20th century by JD Power.
The reason the original (not the 3800) Buick V-6 was so popular in Jeep swaps was that the "nail heads" were narrower than any other 90 degree V engine. If you look at a pre-1969 Buick engine, the valve covers are vertical.
Dave,
Isnt the 3.8 and 4.2 Ford V-6 based on the Windsor V-8's?
Isnt the 3.8 and 4.2 Ford V-6 based on the Windsor V-8's?
Jim
That is what i thought as well, but I looked it up, and the 3.8/4.2 are not based on windsor's. Though if you were to ass 2 more cyls to the 3.8 it would be a 5.0, the bore and stroke are not the same as a 5.0.
__________________
2003 F250 SD 4X4 5.4L 4:10 Arizona Beige
1987 Mustang GT
09 Challenger RT
A bunch of motorcycles, other cars, and a Quad.
The reason the original (not the 3800) Buick V-6 was so popular in Jeep swaps was that the "nail heads" were narrower than any other 90 degree V engine. If you look at a pre-1969 Buick engine, the valve covers are vertical. Jim
The reason the early Buick V6 engine was sold overseas and discontinued here was the uneven idle. They also had a unique running sound. Due to the angle, the pistons did not reach TDC at the same time. After the fuel shortage, they bought the rights back and offset the crank journals so the pistons would reach TDC at the same time (one compression and one exhaust).
__________________
2004 XLT Regular Cab, Short Bed, 4X4 with 5.4 and 3.73.
The reason the original (not the 3800) Buick V-6 was so popular in Jeep swaps was that the "nail heads" were narrower than any other 90 degree V engine. If you look at a pre-1969 Buick engine, the valve covers are vertical.
Dave,
Isnt the 3.8 and 4.2 Ford V-6 based on the Windsor V-8's?
Jim
The 90 degree Buick V6 responded well to performance mods and unlike most other V6's there were performance parts available for it.
Another reason it was a popular swap in Jeeps...is because Jeep purchased the tooling from GM back in the earlier '60's and it was in their engine line. It was called the 'Dauntless V6' and it was well regarded for it's power.
After Buick bought the tooling back after the first 'oil crisis' in the '70's, it was modified to quell the bibration by Buick, as you say.
But it still fit into the engine bay of the later Jeeps.
The Thunderbird SC was far from "gutless". That Ford 3.8L SC put down more power, and was more reliable than ANY of the GM SC 3800s.
you might get a few ford 3.8 owners to disgree with you. IIRC ford recalled ALL 3.8s to replace the head gasket problem - something buick never saw fit to have.
the dautless v6 from buick was a 225, not a 231.
the ford 3.8SC had only 2 hp ratings: 210 at first, then 240
the buick series 1 L67 was 205hp then 225hp, the series 2 was 240 and the series 3 l32 was 260hp.
this does not take into account that GM had 300hp versions prowling around for about a decade, but management never pulled the trigger.
so while it is technically correct that the lowest ford sc version had 5 more hp, that was short lived.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
