Worst Automatic Transmissions Ever Built?
I'll give my vote to the Chevy Turboglide built
from 1957-1961. They were pure junk!
Instead of rebuilding these, they were usually
converted to a Powerglide.
Also Buick's Dual Path, used in Buick Specials
from 1961-1963 was another terrible transmission.
from 1957-1961. They were pure junk!
Instead of rebuilding these, they were usually
converted to a Powerglide.
Also Buick's Dual Path, used in Buick Specials
from 1961-1963 was another terrible transmission.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Saab automatics are also pretty lame at least up to 1994.
These were really bizarre!
I remember showing one person how to drive their 280SL roadster...the complaint was "no power" and "gutless"...well, sure they were driving it like a Rambler...so I put it in #1, revved it up to 6,500, shifted it up through the gears....they about freaked...but that's what the car was BUILT to do...it could take it, too.
They were reliable, though. Later, they were replaced with the Roto-Hydramatic. These were called "slim jims" and they were pretty lousy too!
I knew a guy who owned an independant transmission shop at the time. He made a fortune on these. His fix was to convert them to a 350.
My dad got a Powerglide in 1950...had to be rebuilt many times when reverse went out. Turboglide in 1957...replaced with Powerglide 6 or 7 years later as you wrote many did. A friend had a 1957 Turboglide and he said it was very easy to repair so he kept repairing his own. The Fluid Drive of Chrysler could have as a motto "All
the slippage of an automatic with all of the inconvenience of a manual". Ford-O-Matic was not much to brag about. Dynaflow also a sick joke.
But the original 4 speed Hydramatic was quite rugged and in various degrees of beefing up was used in many Army vehicles of Korean War Vintage. Our Army FA Battalion took 1950's GMC 2-1/2 ton with straight 6 cylinder and Hydramatic to Vietnam
in 1965 and they were still running 1 year later..
..But, the few new diesel trucks we got with manual transmission were shot while the old M211 duece and a half were still going strong!
But, I disagree to a point about the Dynaflows. They were inefficient and sluggish to be sure. They did hold up, however.
My parents kept their 51 Roadmaster until 1965. I learned to drive on that beast!
I was never able to hurt that Dynaflow despite using a trick another 16 year old taught me...
Start out in drive from a stop, floorboard the gas. When the big Buick got up to about 35 MPH, drop the shifter into low without letting up on the gas.
The Buick would chirp the rear tires, the front end would bounce up and it would take off...Shift back to drive around 55 MPH!
Funny to watch. That big 320 Cubic Inch straight eight has a sound all it's own too. These were great engines.
However, a close second would be the "world-class" (thanks, Car & Driver) tranny in my '98 GTP. At 26k it failed. The dealer rebuilt it, and it failed again. All in the last week. On the plus side, I'm driving a really nice Volvo S70 rental car. Could be my next car. Shiftright, what do you think of S70s?
A buddy bought a '52 De Soto from an old lady who decided to quit driving. What a shame...The car was soooo nice until he got ahold of it...
Anyway, it had a hemi V-8 engine, and the STRANGEST transmission. It shifted when you lifted your foot off the gas. It also had a button on the end of the shifter that put it into "passing gear".
Of course, he had great fun winding out as hard as it would go and then would quickly lift his foot off the gas so it would shift, then slam the gas back down.
The De Soto desperatly missed grandma and didn't last long as I recall...too bad, it was VERY nice, very low miles, etc. Oh well!
Okay, back to transmissions.
One of the best automatic transmissions of all time were Chrysler's Torquefites (727 and 904). These transmissions were practically bulletproof.
I guess Chrysler goes forward one step and takes two steps back.
BTW - Chrysler fixed these defective transmissions by 1995 - the post 1995s don't appear to have many problems.
Caravan Sport. At 30K the transmission was acting
funny, each time it was taken to the Dodge dealer
they said it's alright. At 43K (now out of
warranty) it would only go into 2nd or reverse.
Chrysler said, 'to bad', and only paid half the
$1,500 it cost to fix. And the Dodge dealer would
only give $10,000 for it as a trade in. So, Two
things if you buy a Chrysler product minivan: 1)
buy an expensive extended warranty, 2) resale will
be very low.
Now after surfing the internet, I see I am not
along. Verdict: Chrsyler minivans look nice, but
have no quality or resale.
Has anyone been successful at suing Chrysler?
For 2001, also know that Chrysler has repeatedly
said over the past 10 years that they have fixed
their transmisson problem.
Most of my cars in the past have been Chrysler, ranging from a 1957 DeSoto with a pushbutton TF727 on up to the Intrepid. The only one that ever gave me any serious tranny trouble was a 1979 Newport with a TF998 (I think...it was basically a heavy-duty 904) that had to be rebuilt at 230K miles. Oh well, I guess those days are over!
There have been no problems with the transmission so far. He said it would be preventive maintnenance and would save us from buying a $5,000 transmission down the road. That made me suspicious because I've never heard of a $5,000 transmission, especially for a Chevy.
The chains scare me!
Some of them are as clean as a grocery store! No longer do they send you out back with your tools to pull your own parts!
And they charge! They seem to know just how much they can charge before you will simply buy a new unit or have your old one rebuilt.
I also think of the fat payment books that came along with most of those cars not all that many years ago.
The only bad Mazda transmission I'm aware of are the ones in their MPV mini vans.
There could be more that I'm unaware of.
I second ISELL that 135K in 12 years is not unreasonable, especially without knowing driving habits, maint. history, etc.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Similar stories applied to other models. Others, like your wonderful torqueflght lasted much longer.
And...remember the leaks? Reseal jobs were VERY common in the old days!
While its true that modern transmissions (usually) outlast older designs, what about the cost of them? The last tranny rebuild I had to to was to a 1979 Chrysler Newport. It had a TF-998 (beefed up 904), which lasted to about 230,000 miles. This was early 1997, and it cost about $650 to rebuild. I had a TH-350 self-destruct in an '82 Cutlass Supreme in 1993, and it was around the same to rebuild.
Don't these more modern trannys run in the thousands, though? I know a pizza delivery driver who toasted the tranny in his 1997 Subaru wagon, and it was something like $3900+core to replace! I've heard the one in my Y2K Intrepid would run around $2-3,000 once it goes out of warranty.
In constrast, when I bought my '89 Gran Fury, the dealer I bought it from said if the tranny ever went, he could throw in a used one for around $300, and a used 318 for around $1000.
I think this price disparity in transmissions is going to send a lot of otherwise ok cars to the junkyard before their time. When I had my two tranny rebuilds, I was thinking in terms of monthly payments. I figured I could either throw a tranny in it for $650, or pay around $300 a month for a cheap new car. So that tranny equated to about 2 months of car payments, no big deal, have it rebuilt and hope the car lasts another 2 months. But now a $2000 tranny would equate to almost 7 months of payments, and is a pretty large sum of money to sink into an old car, and a $3000 tranny is a decent down payment on a new car.
As far as tranny failures go, I think the only one in my family I can recall (other than my own) was my grandfather's 1977 Granada. It failed within a year or two. But that side of the family never kept a car more than 3-4 years. Actually, come to think of it, one of my great uncles burnt up the tranny in a 1957 Ford when he got stuck in the snow in 1958. Oh, then there was the Torqueflite 904 in my '68 Dart. The guy who had it before me rebuilt the 318 at around 240K miles, and put a mild cam in it. It was fast enough that most of my friends were shocked to find out it only had a 2bbl carb on it. Anyway, he put all this money into the engine, and all that added power just killed the worn out tranny (and rear end). He threw in a used one that some guy had in his back yard, and that was about 98,000 trouble free miles ago.
Hope I haven't rambled on too much!
-Andre
-Andre
Couple that with the electronics that were unheard of probably even on the '79, and you can see why they cost big bucks. i have to imagine that a FWD set up is much more complicated than an old fashioned straight through model.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
As far as the transaxle and transmission go, I heard the difference is that the transaxle houses the differential, too, where it would be a seperate unit on a RWD car.
At first I thought that my friend's Tracker would cost a lot more than $700 for a rebuild, especially by the dealer. However, it's only a 3-speed, and RWD, so even though it's a '98, I guess it's still pretty simple.
-Andre