Automatic Flatty

[ptwothree]

Anybody know what's involved with installing a powerflite or torqueflite behind a 218 in a 52 Cranny?

 

Might have to give up the clutch sometime in the future.  

[JerseyHarold]

They came from the factory that way in 1955-59 so it can be done.   Would a modern trans (maybe a pre-electronic GM or Ford unit) be a possibility because it's smaller and lighter?

[Plymouthy Adams]

debuted mid production 1954 also..this may help you extend your search for a donor...

[ptwothree]

Thanks guys.  I guess I am concerned about a possible relocation of the cross member that supports the engine/trans in the earlier cars like mine as opposed to the '54 to '59 location.  

 

I'm not familiar with or have access to one of these so I'm hoping someone who does might chime in.

[Plymouthy Adams]

I did...!

[Dodgeb4ya]

Here's a couple pix of a 1954 Chrysler with the 265 flathead and powerflite trans. I parted it out last year for the engine and P/S. I sold the rest.

I might be able to get the rear cross member and two frame brackets...The two side crossmember pieces are either welded or rivited to each side of the frame.

Bob

[ptwothree]

I did...!

Did what???  Care to elaborate Mr A?

 

Here's a couple pix of a 1954 Chrysler with the 265 flathead and powerflite trans. I parted it out last year for the engine and P/S. I sold the rest.

I might be able to get the rear cross member and two frame brackets...The two side crossmember pieces are either welded or rivited to each side of the frame.

Bob

Thanks for the pics!  So it looks like at a minimum I'll need a cross member, mounts, a different E- brake cable, longer speedo cable, a shortened drive shaft and a trans.

[Plymouthy Adams]

I mentioned it appeared in the 54 model year to aid in your searching of donors..

 

I have one of these in a 54 Savoy...probably the single most reason I even bought that car as it was an automatic...the three on the tree is not my cup of tea.  The Powerfilte continued through 1961

 

In addition to the opening statement I will post a link, read more here...http://www.allpar.com/mopar/powerflite.html

 

 

As an added note, I believe if I were to retrofit any tranny to the flathead I would look to a bit more modern and use of a simple adapter plate.  These have been discussed on here in the past. 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Plymouthy Adams

[henselwoods]

I was thinking along these same paths lately but wanted to lower the rpms a bit more than the old two speed would allow. So ordered the wilcap adapter for the chevrolet automatic yesterday and plan on installing a 200r4 I have in the barn. All in all I didnt want to do it at first and wanted to rebuild the old fluid drive. The reseal kit from Andy B along with a new clutch and other parts needed will cost way more than the conversion parts . I think the biggest plus for me is lowering the rpms on the old girl, not to mention saving this old knee from further workouts. The ebrake will be a issue but I might be able to fabricate a bracket . I don't want to change the rear end unless I have to. Time will tell. This should keep me busy most of the winter. Don't quite understand how things started to get harder to do than 45 years ago. Ya think its because of the water?

[jrhoads]

Keep us posted. Sounds like and interesting project. Someday I would like to go auto on the 49 Ply....

[46Ply]

Henselwoods wrote:  " Don't quite understand how things started to get harder to do than 45 years ago. Ya think its because of the water?"

 

It's either that or the bridge it went under!    

[denmopar]

I can't speak for other model years, but for 1954---the frames ARE different regarding the cross-members between the standard 3 speed and Powerflite automatic.

If someone has the parts book, they could verify the part numbers for the frames for the two different transmissions .

 

The Powerflite install used the 230 cu in. engine - not the 217.8 (or as others call the 218) engine. More horses to compensate for the losses of the automatic.

 

I have both a Powerflite and a 3 speed manual' 54 sedans. I like each for different reasons.

 

Oh- If deciding on using a period Powerflite, I think the 1955 is the newest to consider, considering the '56 and later used the pushbutton drive mechanism. Anything can be adapted, but that is depending on the installer's imagination and capability, of course.

 

Den-

Edited December 23, 2015 by denmopar

[James_Douglas]

Although I will not get to it until winter spring 2017, I am going to take a 3-speed 1962-1964 727 and cut the bell off.  I am then going to modify the stock cast iron bell housing to get it to mate.  I want to keep the "floating Power" mounting.  I ma use a gear vendors overdrive with it as well.

 

James.

[Don Coatney]

Although I will not get to it until winter spring 2017, I am going to take a 3-speed 1962-1964 727 and cut the bell off.  I am then going to modify the stock cast iron bell housing to get it to mate.  I want to keep the "floating Power" mounting.  I ma use a gear vendors overdrive with it as well.

 

James.

Sounds interesting James. Is this for your black Desoto or for your convertible?

[55 Fargo]

Although I will not get to it until winter spring 2017, I am going to take a 3-speed 1962-1964 727 and cut the bell off.  I am then going to modify the stock cast iron bell housing to get it to mate.  I want to keep the "floating Power" mounting.  I ma use a gear vendors overdrive with it as well.

 

James.

That's an interesting concept James, and not necessarily gonna be all that cheap either.Has this been done before? Or a hypothesis, you are planning to create for the first time.

yes the motive for the retaining of the fluid drive bell is what? Rear Motor mounts being retained?

Now what are you planning for your torque converter, use it inside the stock cast iron bell, attached to the crank, How? Flex plate to stock crank, what about the starter and ring gear?

Final question, a 727 has a bit of parasitic loss, much more than a A904, why did you choose this trans over the A904, and why not go with a A518 trans then if you plan to attach a GV overdrive to it.

Interesting concept...

[dpollo]

Here is the problem  (actually there are several)   Powerflites came only with the 230 engine in the USA.  The crankshaft

on a 52- 218  has only 4 holes, you need eight.  Swap a 230 into your car and the powerflite and that problem is solved. Other engines in the Chrysler Desoto , Dodge and  all Canadian production had eight hole crankshafts.

Next is the control.  54 and 55 use a lever, column mounted in 54.  easy to connect.  56 and up use a cable.  not so good unless you want pushbutton control.   Also needed is the throttle position sensor which would have to come from a 54.  It is a mechanical link

connected to the throttle linkage and is Very Important for proper operation of the transmission.

The next issue is the transmission tunnel which needs to be a lot bigger.   I think that an adaptor is made to adapt a GM Turbo 350

to the Plymouth 6 .  I believe this would be a better way to go because they are lighter and more compact but then you need a park-brake setup in the rear. As you have already discovered, the rear mounts are different and the 57 to 59 setup front and rear are not

the best choice for your car.  Sorry to rain on your parade  but a Slant-six with T-Flite  would be easier all round and that has its challenges too.  Been there Done that.

[55 Fargo]

Here is the problem  (actually there are several)   Powerflites came only with the 230 engine in the USA.  The crankshaft

on a 52- 218  has only 4 holes, you need eight.  Swap a 230 into your car and the powerflite and that problem is solved. Other engines in the Chrysler Desoto , Dodge and  all Canadian production had eight hole crankshafts.

Next is the control.  54 and 55 use a lever, column mounted in 54.  easy to connect.  56 and up use a cable.  not so good unless you want pushbutton control.   Also needed is the throttle position sensor which would have to come from a 54.  It is a mechanical link

connected to the throttle linkage and is Very Important for proper operation of the transmission.

The next issue is the transmission tunnel which needs to be a lot bigger.   I think that an adaptor is made to adapt a GM Turbo 350

to the Plymouth 6 .  I believe this would be a better way to go because they are lighter and more compact but then you need a park-brake setup in the rear. As you have already discovered, the rear mounts are different and the 57 to 59 setup front and rear are not

the best choice for your car.  Sorry to rain on your parade  but a Slant-six with T-Flite  would be easier all round and that has its challenges too.  Been there Done that.

Just FYI, Wayfarer makes an adapter plate for the torquefite transmissions for the Chrysler flathead 6s. He is a member on this forum.Yes will 2nd the throttle kickdown linkage, the trans would be toast in no time without it. Lokar makes a nice cable set-up as well as others...

[mopar_earl]

FYI,

I came across a 55 Plymouth with auto on Craig's list for $225.00 in York, PA area. Six cylinder. It's listed as manual but its auto. I was hoping it was manual with OD but turns out it's auto. Cheap price for an auto drivetrain.

Earl

[ptwothree]

Here is the problem  (actually there are several)   Powerflites came only with the 230 engine in the USA.  The crankshaft

on a 52- 218  has only 4 holes, you need eight.  Swap a 230 into your car and the powerflite and that problem is solved. Other engines in the Chrysler Desoto , Dodge and  all Canadian production had eight hole crankshafts.

Next is the control.  54 and 55 use a lever, column mounted in 54.  easy to connect.  56 and up use a cable.  not so good unless you want pushbutton control.   Also needed is the throttle position sensor which would have to come from a 54.  It is a mechanical link

connected to the throttle linkage and is Very Important for proper operation of the transmission.

The next issue is the transmission tunnel which needs to be a lot bigger.   I think that an adaptor is made to adapt a GM Turbo 350

to the Plymouth 6 .  I believe this would be a better way to go because they are lighter and more compact but then you need a park-brake setup in the rear. As you have already discovered, the rear mounts are different and the 57 to 59 setup front and rear are not

the best choice for your car.  Sorry to rain on your parade  but a Slant-six with T-Flite  would be easier all round and that has its challenges too.  Been there Done that.

Thanks dpollo.....This is good stuff.  Forgot about the 4 bolt - 8 bolt problem.  I've got a  newly rebuilt 218 so that sort of rules out a p'flyte swap.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I like the idea of a /6 904 combo but, don't want to swap out a rear end to relocate the e-brake!  Boy, they don't make it easy.

[dpollo]

I saw an emergency brake setup relocated to the input flange of a differential.  It was operated by a much longer cable

and seemed to work all right but it would be vulnerable to dirt and road splash. There are some good suggestions following my last remarks with regard to adaptors and controls.

 

I had a 54 Plymouth with Powerflite.  It was ok but no ball of fire for performance.  I have overdrive in my various cars and while gear shifting is still necessary, the use of the clutch pedal is reduced somewhat once you are rolling.  The semi automatic from earlier Chryslers is too heavy to be practical in a Plymouth.

 

An adapter for a 904 sounds good. I wonder what starter/ ring gear combination is needed.   

[55 Fargo]

Here yah go,   http://www.qualityengineeredcomponents.com/?page_id=224

 

With respect to the ebrake and diff, why not swap in something modern, like a Mopar 8 1/4, complete with modern brakes and ebrakes, not hard at all to swap in. Would have matching ujoint yolk for the 904 trans too.

I have no idea, if any of the posters will go through with this conversion, but it's not a simple Saturday swap...

[James_Douglas]

Sounds interesting James. Is this for your black Desoto or for your convertible?

Hi Don,

 

Yes.  I decided that unless it is absolutely necessary, I want to keep a flathead in the car.  With Don Smith figuring out how to get a power steering unit into the existing frame and flathead without any cutting other than the steering tube...

 

I think that a modern trans with a torque converter and a Gear Vendors OD (GVOD) may give the car just "the right" combination for Sondra and I to use the car as we get older.

 

I have the front disc conversion, as you know, and I have the rear disc conversion on the shelf waiting to go in.

 

****

As an aside to anyone reading this...the front disc conversion on the '49 Convertible (ECI) and the rear disc brake conversion on the '49 which I designed and built myself...with the remote (midland-ross) power booster and using the 1951 Chrysler power brake car MC, pushrod, and pedal ---which are different than non-power cars, makes the brakes on the 1949 almost TOO powerful.  If you hit the brakes hard it WILL send you flying forward. When I do the '47, I will leave off the power brake booster and see first if it needs it.

****

 

What I plan to do for the big Desoto is to remove the bell housing from a 1962-1964 Torqueflite (TF). (I like the rear pump models for engine braking)  I will then see if I can machine the rear of a stock cast-iron bell housing, in combination with some plate, and get the TF to mate up. 

 

I will have to see if a torque converter will fit under that bell housing and come up with a flex plate and crankshaft adaptor.  I want the starter to be the original 6 volt and stay in the exact same place.  I will also fit the TF with a GVOD.  I have not decided if I want to use their GVOD adaptor and hang it off of the rear of the trans or use their stand alone unit.  Since the big Desoto has the long wheelbase, 2 driveshaft's, and a center bearing...I was thinking of removing the center bearing and using that extra cross member (modified) to house a stand alone GVOD and thus get ride of the center bearing.  The GVOD will be the "center bearing" between the two drive shafts.

 

I have been following the discussions on Automatics for these cars now for 15 years.  I want to make a unit that retains the original bell and cross member, the factory floating power arrangement, and the stock starter.  I also may try to make a cable that runs off of the shifter to do the shifting.  Else, I can use a push button system.

 

I may also leave the clutch pedal in and use it to trigger the OD solenoid.  That would be cool...clutch it down to overdrive...

 

I have to finish the replacement engine over the next 2 weeks on the '49.  I also need to help my buddy finish putting together his XKE. The IRS is next to my flathead and what a complicated thing that is!  We are also waiting on contractors for quotes to expand the garage at the house in the country next spring - summer. 

 

SO...that is why I will not be able to start on the trans project until next fall!

 

I hope all is well. 

 

PS.  Email me directly with your new address, phone, email so I can update my records.

 

Best, James

[James_Douglas]

That's an interesting concept James, and not necessarily gonna be all that cheap either.Has this been done before? Or a hypothesis, you are planning to create for the first time.

yes the motive for the retaining of the fluid drive bell is what? Rear Motor mounts being retained?

Now what are you planning for your torque converter, use it inside the stock cast iron bell, attached to the crank, How? Flex plate to stock crank, what about the starter and ring gear?

Final question, a 727 has a bit of parasitic loss, much more than a A904, why did you choose this trans over the A904, and why not go with a A518 trans then if you plan to attach a GV overdrive to it.

Interesting concept...

 

See my note to Don for your other issues.  As to parasitic loss.  This concept has been floating around these forums for years.  I think it is hog wash. Why?

 

The combination of the fluid coupling, the clutch assembly, the all steel gears in the M5/M5, and the brake drum on the rear of the transmission has MUCH more reciprocating weight than a flex plate, modern torque converter, and Torqueflite (TF).  Especially if you get a "light" converter which they make and a "light" TF clutch pack housing which is also made.  Given the native HP/Torque loads on a TF, a flathead six would never hurt a TF done is lightweight race fashion.

 

I have had both of these systems on my bench, many M5/M6's and a lot of TF's from my Chrysler 300  twin ram days. I can tell you the final reciprocating weight of changing will be less than the original.

 

Of course if anyone wants to...one can always tear both down and weigh everything to find out.

 

Will my solution cost a lot.  Yes.  But, if it works out it will be one sweet setup and if I do not have to swap engines to get what I want out of this car then it is money well spent.

 

James.

[Don Coatney]

James, contact information sent via e-mail

[55 Fargo]

See my note to Don for your other issues.  As to parasitic loss.  This concept has been floating around these forums for years.  I think it is hog wash. Why?

 

The combination of the fluid coupling, the clutch assembly, the all steel gears in the M5/M5, and the brake drum on the rear of the transmission has MUCH more reciprocating weight than a flex plate, modern torque converter, and Torqueflite (TF).  Especially if you get a "light" converter which they make and a "light" TF clutch pack housing which is also made.  Given the native HP/Torque loads on a TF, a flathead six would never hurt a TF done is lightweight race fashion.

 

I have had both of these systems on my bench, many M5/M6's and a lot of TF's from my Chrysler 300  twin ram days. I can tell you the final reciprocating weight of changing will be less than the original.

 

Of course if anyone wants to...one can always tear both down and weigh everything to find out.

 

Will my solution cost a lot.  Yes.  But, if it works out it will be one sweet setup and if I do not have to swap engines to get what I want out of this car then it is money well spent.

 

James.

Hi James, and Merry Christmas, all the best for 2016.

 yes do think you have a fair amount of engineering work ahead, and do look with interest on your build thread and progress on this concept....