Hemmings Classic Car

[pacerman]

The latest issue of Classic Car has some good old Mopar articles. There's an "I was there" type article about assembling Mopars in the 30s and 40s. There's a feature on a pilothouse truck. And Ray Bohacz does one of his excellent technical write-ups about the Chrysler turbine engine. At least one of the featured sedans is also a Mopar. Joe

[bobostski]

I just bought 2 year subscription for $23. Less tha a dollar an issue.Very good deal!

Bob O.

[B-Watson]

The latest issue of Classic Car has some good old Mopar articles. There's an "I was there" type article about assembling Mopars in the 30s and 40s. There's a feature on a pilothouse truck. And Ray Bohacz does one of his excellent technical write-ups about the Chrysler turbine engine. At least one of the featured sedans is also a Mopar. Joe

Mr. Bohacz has a tendency to be very pro-GM so I was surprised at how neutral he was in this article, although he was wrong about who styled the 1963 turbine car. Although built by Ghia, it was styled in Detroit by Elwood Engel and his staff.

And reading that article, you would think the 1963 turbine car was the only one Chrysler built. Chrysler's first car was in 1954, with the last in 1980. Chrysler spent a fair number of years developing a turbine engine for a car before and after the 50 Italian-built bodies.

Like how he gave praise to GM at the end of his article.

The author's pro-GM stance really came through on his article on the lock up torque converter. He praises GM's efforts to the sky, tosses off Packard's transmission as non-production (less than 100,000 a year) and ignores Chrysler who came out with a lock up converter two years before GM.

Last month's article on Buick's Dynaflow had more errors than truth. He talks about the Dynaflow shifting gears and downshifting to pass, blissfully ignorant of the fact that Drive in Dynaflow was direct drive and and no passing gear.

I was around in the 1950's and contrary to the praise heaped on Dynaflow and public acceptance, Dynaflow was ridiculed by the public and gave automatic transmissions a bad name in the public's mind. It was sluggish, slow off the line and noted for high maintenance.

Ray Bohacz is a good writer, but he has to dump the love affair with GM. It does cloud his view of the automotive world.

[Plymouthy Adams]

your reflections on this author is the exact reason I do not buy nor read car magazine articles..Chrysler has never been given a fair shake and they have been responsible for so many advances in the automobile technology world where it is often quickly taken for granted..the very things some companies tout today a sinnovative has come and gone long ago in the realm of Mopar as they silently advance forward...so..Mopar to you for Chrysler's sake...!!!!!!! all I am going to say on the matter..

[captden29]

i, too was surprised abiut the dynaflow article as they definitely were slow and sluggish. i wondered where the author got his information . the dynaflow certainly was an early automatic and as such could not be perfect, but thousands of buick owners liked them and the straight eight of the time was not a racing engine of any kind, so the dynaflow was not the worst match. as far as chrysler, they did not have a passenger car automatic until 1953, so they had a few more years to get it right. the powerflite, which i have in my 2 1954 windsors is smooth and dependable. it is known for longevity. mine are in original condition. the only complaint i have is neither one has a passing gear that works, so that may be a common problem with these transmissions. i do like classic car and just recently renewed my subscription for 1 year at $12, which i think is a bargain. the question and answer guy never seems to really answer most questions, so i do not know why he picks questions to publish that he cannot answer. i still like to read his column,if only to see what he didn't answer this month. i tried to get a better discount to hemmings but they woud not do it, so right now i am without it. car magazines are great bathroom reading, so i always have to have one or two. by the way, chrysler made the torqueflite, enough said. capt den

[busycoupe]

I recently subscribed to Hemmings Motor News online and let my print subscription lapse. I had been getting the print version for 10 years or so. The online version is a bargain. $12/yr as opposed to $36/yr for the print version. The online version is a PDF of the print magazine. All of the pages, ads, articles are there exactly the same as the print version. A nice feature is that all of the web addresses in the ads are live links. If you see something you like, you just click on the link to go to the companies page.

Dave

[55 Fargo]

Bill, I for one am glad you are part of the Chryco-Mopar crew, with your vast historical knowledge, and the ability to share it with us on this Forum, and otheres I also belong to.

Just proves once again, that Winnipeg people are in the know, and I know you hale from good old Winterpeg Canada........Fred

Mr. Bohacz has a tendency to be very pro-GM so I was surprised at how neutral he was in this article, although he was wrong about who styled the 1963 turbine car. Although built by Ghia, it was styled in Detroit by Elwood Engel and his staff.

And reading that article, you would think the 1963 turbine car was the only one Chrysler built. Chrysler's first car was in 1954, with the last in 1980. Chrysler spent a fair number of years developing a turbine engine for a car before and after the 50 Italian-built bodies.

Like how he gave praise to GM at the end of his article.

The author's pro-GM stance really came through on his article on the lock up torque converter. He praises GM's efforts to the sky, tosses off Packard's transmission as non-production (less than 100,000 a year) and ignores Chrysler who came out with a lock up converter two years before GM.

Last month's article on Buick's Dynaflow had more errors than truth. He talks about the Dynaflow shifting gears and downshifting to pass, blissfully ignorant of the fact that Drive in Dynaflow was direct drive and and no passing gear.

I was around in the 1950's and contrary to the praise heaped on Dynaflow and public acceptance, Dynaflow was ridiculed by the public and gave automatic transmissions a bad name in the public's mind. It was sluggish, slow off the line and noted for high maintenance.

Ray Bohacz is a good writer, but he has to dump the love affair with GM. It does cloud his view of the automotive world.

[P-12 Tommy]

your reflections on this author is the exact reason I do not buy nor read car magazine articles..Chrysler has never been given a fair shake and they have been responsible for so many advances in the automobile technology world where it is often quickly taken for granted..the very things some companies tout today a sinnovative has come and gone long ago in the realm of Mopar as they silently advance forward...so..Mopar to you for Chrysler's sake...!!!!!!! all I am going to say on the matter..

Well said Tim!

Tom

[pacerman]

Mr. Bohacz has a tendency to be very pro-GM so I was surprised at how neutral he was in this article, although he was wrong about who styled the 1963 turbine car. Although built by Ghia, it was styled in Detroit by Elwood Engel and his staff.

GM bias? That's a hoot. The man (Mr. Bohacz) has a 300,000 mile Ford Escort, a Ford Ranger pickup and a Ford tractor on his farm. Gm Bias? Find something else to nitpick but not that.

[B-Watson]

GM bias? That's a hoot. The man (Mr. Bohacz) has a 300,000 mile Ford Escort, a Ford Ranger pickup and a Ford tractor on his farm. Gm Bias? Find something else to nitpick but not that.

What a person drives is really immaterial.

And sorry, but what I have pointed out are not examples of nitpicking, but are major errors in a series of articles presented as expert opinion. The errors in the Dynaflow article, in particular, put the whole article`s accuracy in question.

Mr. Bohacz makes the statement that the public viewed Buick as the inventor of shiftless driving. They didn`t - they knew Oldsmobile with its 4-speed Hydramatic was.

However, Buick did have the first shiftLESS automatic. Contrary to the author`s view, Dynaflow did NOT shift. Drive gave you direct drive from the a dead stop. No low gear start - ever. No passing gear - ever. You had the car in Drive and wanted Low gear you had to move the gear selector to Low, provided you were going less than 40 mph.

All his gushing about the importance of Dynaflow is all marketing hype. As stated, Hydramatic was on the market first - and eight years before Dynaflow. And Hydramatic was available on Oldsmobile, Cadillac and Pontiac in 1948, followed by Kaiser, Frazer. Nash, Hudson, and Willys in 1950.

The gear selection presented to the Dynaflow driver was not much different from that facing a Hydramatic driver. Except Hydramatic had 4 gears when in Drive while Reverse also activated park when selected after the engine was shut off.

The author states there were other shift-free transmissions before Dynaflow and most employed a fluid coupling. This is where Dynaflow made its name, and he missed it. Before Dynaflow, there was but ONE automatic transmission for cars - Hydramatic, fluid coupling and all. Dynaflow was the FIRST car transmission with a torque converter.

He talks about the fluid coupling units being poor performers, but Dynaflow was the slug due to the fact it used only the torque converter to deal with driving from 0 mph to any speed. HM had 4 gears which made up for the sluggish fluid coupling. HM was used in drag racers for years, but Dynaflow, never. Dynaflow was a perfect match for Buick - a cruiser not a racer.

Chrysler`s 4-speed semi-automatic used a fluid coupling, and many viewed its performance as a slug. One writer quipped the car took off in 3rd gear (hi range) from a dead stop, a la Dynaflow. Packard came out with Ultramatic for 1949, also a 2-speed unit with torque converter with direct drive in Drive, but the torque converter was a lock-up unit. Slow take off (not a big problem for Packard drivers) but the lock-up converter gave true direct drive just like a manual transmission.

In 1950 Chevrolet introduced Powerglide, actually a scaled down version of Dynaflow. The unit had direct drive in Drive and low gear in Low, just like Dynaflow. And just like Dynaflow, no gear shifting, no passing gear and Powerglide was noted for smooth operation, but not off the line performance.

Mid 1950 saw Studebaker`s Automatic - a 3-speed unit with a lock-up converter. Low was 1st gear while Drive had 2nd gear start with a shift to 3rd (direct). 1951 saw Ford-o-matic and Mercomatic, both 3-speed units with 2nd gear start in Drive, all mated to a torque converter (no lock-up).

Studebaker and Ford used automatics that would be the basis for industry norm, not Buick.

Getting back to the Dynaflow article, the author is dead wrong about the M18 Hellcat. The Hellcat in fact used a version of Allison`s transit bus transmission with torque converter. The Hellcat was the inspiration for Dynaflow but not a test bed as production of the M18 ended in October 1944.

1953 was a pivotal year for both Dynaflow and Powerglide. Dynaflow would embark on a period of torque converter development, each version being more complex to improve take off performance and compensate for the lack of a passing gear. Powerglide did the opposite - left the torque converter alone and adopted low gear start in Drive. Powerglide gained a reputation of reliability and economy of operation that Dynaflow never did.

Finally, the Super Turbine 400 was a 3-speed unit, not 4. Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Cadillac all used the same transmission, and although you might not recognize the Super Turbine 400, you might recognize the name used by all the other makes - Turbo Hydramatic. THM was based on Simpson patents, just like Chrysler`s Torqueflite, although eight years later than Chrysler.

You are obviously friends with Ray Bohacz, which is great. But don`t let that cloud your view of what he writes.

[B-Watson]

Bill, I for one am glad you are part of the Chryco-Mopar crew, with your vast historical knowledge, and the ability to share it with us on this Forum, and otheres I also belong to.

Just proves once again, that Winnipeg people are in the know, and I know you hale from good old Winterpeg Canada........Fred

Thanks for the complement, Fred. I enjoy sharing what I know, otherwise it is all a waste.