News:

Due to a technical issue, some recently uploaded pictures have been lost. We are investigating why this happened but the issue has been resolved so that future uploads should be safe.  You can also Modify your post (MORE...) and re-upload the pictures in your post.

Main Menu

1960 - Jetaway VS TH400

Started by Hayden P, January 11, 2013, 01:44:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hayden P

I am sure this has been discussed before...

but can people put the pros and cons of each transmission ?

I have a 1960 coupe with standard Jetaway trans... but people seem to say TH400 is good trans. I understand it is a 3spd as opposed to 4spd Jet... but in Australia... might be hard to get parts and servicing for Jet ...TH400 is as common as mud....

anyway... is it much work to put a TH400 in a 1960 also ?

The Tassie Devil(le)

Putting a TH400 behind a 390 is a task not for the feint-hearted, or shallow-walleted, especially in Australia.

You will need:
(1)   A new Flex Plate, as the 390 one won't work,
(2)   An adapter for the trans to block,
(3)   A shift quadant change as the TH400 is PRND21, and the Hydro is PND21R,
(4)   A compatible NSS switch so Reverse lights work, in reverse, and the engine won't start in Reverse.
(5)   Shortened Tailshaft,
(6)   Plus a few of the other basic things that are needed to be done in a change like this.

There is nothing wrong with a good-running Hydro, as these are actually 4 speed transmissions, and the low gear really gets the heavy Cadillac off and running.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Hayden P

Bruce...you have convinced me... I am keeping my Jetaway !


66 Eldo

If I was going through the hassle to convert to a Turbo 400, I would go the extra mile (and steps) to install a GM overdrive trans such as a 200R4 or 700R4. Not sure which one would be best for the Cadillac but acceleration would quicker due to their lower first gears and highway fuel economy would increase by about 5 MPG, possibly more.

Eric DeVirgilis CLC# 8621

Of the 8 Cadillacs I owned from 59-64, only one was a TH400 and it was the only one that went bad. I dunno.

Regardless, I would never advise altering the original driveline.

FWIW: The '64 Coupe deVille seemed the thirstiest of the lot as well.
A Cadillac Motorcar is a Possession for which there is no Acceptable Substitute

bcroe

To properly convert to a TH400, in addition to all the above, you would want to put in a lower number
rear axle ratio.  That is because the 400 torque converter has more bottom end torque multiplication,
and you will benefit lower cruise rpm & fuel mileage. 

I drove a lot of Hydros, and they ALL eventually caused me grief.  The TH400 ended those problems. 
Sure, ANY trans many decades old will fail if the soft parts aren't renewed, don't blame that on one
model.  If I was going to go to the HUGE problem of switching out a Hydro, I would go to some kind
of overdrive, lockup clutch, computer controlled transmission.  The 200 & 700 are no where near
strong enough, use a 4L80E or better yet the newer 6 speed version.  Again the axle ratio needs an
update. 
good luck, Bruce Roe

dplotkin

#6
There is little debate over the known fact that the Turbo 400 is a superior transmission to that of the controlled coupling Hyrda-Matic introduced for 56. I learned the hard way with my 56 Fleetwood & many friends of mine have as well with their Oldsmobiles. After reading all I could find to read about the 56 Hydra-Matic as well as rebuilding & discussing mine with John Paluso of Lee Miles Transmission in W. Roxbury MA. I learned that the original 56 & 57 transmissions were terribly underdeveloped and were not cured until sometime in 58 and for sure in 59. Most of the trouble had to do with the front coupling O ring (Spaghetti seal) and cover as well as the neutral drum & reverse cone clutch. Once rebuilt with "updated" hard parts these early transmissions perform as designed. I have a much later one in a 62 Pontiac that performs similarly.

Yet I have never understood why back in the day anyone thought much of either Hydra-Matic, the earlier one or the controlled coupling version, the former was complicated and jerky shifting and the latter complicated, unreliable and shifted as if filled with syrup. Both the Powerglide & Dynaflow were much better to drive, I think, and I own both.

The Turbo 400 was in direct response to and in many ways a copy of Chrysler's 1956 Torqueflight 3 speed automatic with Torque converter which was regarded at the time by automotive engineers and the press as the best Automatic available. Ford tried to license it but instead Borg-Warner loosley copied it in creating the CruiseOmatic introduced for 58. It took GM (actually Buick designed it) until 64 to roll out the 400 and no doubt it was a big, smooth transmission but still more complicated & difficult to rebuild than Chrysler's Torqueflight.

While I sympathize with anyone who has a bad 56-up Hydra-Matic, you are far better off fixing it instead of trying to adapt a Turbo 400. If you were building a custom I'd say by all means, but a stock Cadillac will be better served with its intended unit, in my humble and by no means authoritative opinion.

Dan
56 Fleetwood Sixty Special (Starlight silver over Dawn Grey)
60 Buick Electra six window
60 Chrysler 300 F Coupe
61 Plymouth Savoy Ram Inducted 413 Superstock
62 Pontiac Bonneville Vista
63 Chevy Impala convertable
63 Ford Galaxie XL fastback
65 Corvette convertable 396
68 Chrysler New Yorker

Jason Edge

First for an interesting article on the new for 1964 Turbo Hydrmatic check out this article: http://6364cadillac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/dec-1963-motor-trend-turbo-hydramatic-article

I deal in mainly 63 & 64 Cadillacs and here are some observations I have made regarding changes to install a 1964 "Buick Borrowed" Turbo Hydramatic in a 1963 or prior hydrmatic equipped car.  Here are a list of items you will need:

- Adaptor ring from 1964 TH400 to 429 engine.
NOTE: In 1965 Cadillac got it's own Turbo hydramatic with housing designed to mount directly up to back of engine, in addition to other changes including a dual range drive selection (PRND12L) as opposed to the single drive range (PRNDL) found on the 1964 Turbo Hydramatic. Since the adaptor ring is prone to cracking it might be better to look for a 1965 or later TH transmission that will mate directly to the block.

- TH400 starter & mounting bracket
- Longer front driveshaft section
- Electric kickdown switch (replaces the hydrmatic TV rod)
- TH transmission crossmember and yaw mounts, yaw mounts are different due to difference in housing design.
- PRNDL Quadrant indicator for dash bezel to replace PND1D2LR for Hydrmatic,  PRND12L if using a 1965 or later Turbo Hydrmatic
Here is a picture of the 64 PRNDL:


and a picture of the 1965 PRND12L:



-- Most difficult item to replace: you will need to install a TH400 429 crankshaft in your engine. The Hydramatic crank has a 3 3/8" raised rear area for the driveplate to mount to however the TH400 has a 3" opening on the flexplate (flywheel).

NOTE: you can enlarge the TH400 flexplate to 3 3/8" but it has to be perfect and I've never heard of one done like this lasting long.
Jason Edge
Lifetime Member
Executive Vice President
CLC 1963/64 Cadillac Chapter Director - www.6364Cadillac.com
CLC Carolina Region Webmaster - www.CRCLC.org
CLC MRC Benefactor
email - jasonedge64@outlook.com
1964 Coupe DeVille - Sierra Gold - http://bit.ly/1WnOQRX
2002 Escalade EXT - Black
2013 Escalade EXT Premium Edition - Xenon Blue
2022 XT5 Luxury Premium - Dark Moon Blue Metallic

The Tassie Devil(le)

Oh, and I forgot to mention the Starter problems, as the Hydro Starter bolts to the Transmission, and the TH400 Starter bolts to the Engine Block.   But, an adapter might solve that problem.

Bruce. >:D
'72 Eldorado Convertible (LHD)
'70 Ranchero Squire (RHD)
'74 Chris Craft Gull Wing (SH)
'02 VX Series II Holden Commodore SS Sedan
(Past President Modified Chapter)

Past Cars of significance - to me
1935 Ford 3 Window Coupe
1936 Ford 5 Window Coupe
1937 Chevrolet Sports Coupe
1955 Chevrolet Convertible
1959 Ford Fairlane Ranch Wagon
1960 Cadillac CDV
1972 Cadillac Eldorado Coupe

Caddy Wizard

Quote from: dplotkin on January 13, 2013, 09:02:23 AM
Dan,


I have a 56 FW with the Jetaway and I hate it.  Worst feature of the car.  It gets terrible gas mileage, feels sloppy/goopy, and the shift from 2-3 is very pronounced.  The earlier Dual-Range H-Ms were much better, in my opinion.  I didn't know you could update the unit to something like a 59 unit with better parts.  I'll talk to the local H-M expert and see what he says.


Art Gardner




There is little debate over the known fact that the Turbo 400 is a superior transmission to that of the controlled coupling Hyrda-Matic introduced for 56. I learned the hard way with my 56 Fleetwood & many friends of mine have as well with their Oldsmobiles. After reading all I could find to read about the 56 Hydra-Matic as well as rebuilding & discussing mine with John Paluso of Lee Miles Transmission in W. Roxbury MA. I learned that the original 56 & 57 transmissions were terribly underdeveloped and were not cured until sometime in 58 and for sure in 59. Most of the trouble had to do with the front coupling O ring (Spaghetti seal) and cover as well as the neutral drum & reverse cone clutch. Once rebuilt with "updated" hard parts these early transmissions perform as designed. I have a much later one in a 62 Pontiac that performs similarly.



While I sympathize with anyone who has a bad 56-up Hydra-Matic, you are far better off fixing it instead of trying to adapt a Turbo 400. If you were building a custom I'd say by all means, but a stock Cadillac will be better served with its intended unit, in my humble and by no means authoritative opinion.


Dan
Art Gardner


1955 S60 Fleetwood sedan (now under resto -- has been in paint shop since June 2022!)
1955 S62 Coupe (future show car? 2/3 done)
1958 Eldo Seville (2/3 done)

Caddy Wizard

Dan,


I just got off the phone with my local H-M expert and he says that he could update my 56 Jetaway to be like a 58 or 59 Jetaway.  That would give it crisper shifts, but wouldn't eliminate the general mushiness of the unit.  The clunky 2-3 shift would be smoothed out.  He doesn't think the update would improve the fuel economy much.  $2000 if it hasn't been previously updated.  $1500 to rebuild it if it was previously updated.  Ouch!


Art
Art Gardner


1955 S60 Fleetwood sedan (now under resto -- has been in paint shop since June 2022!)
1955 S62 Coupe (future show car? 2/3 done)
1958 Eldo Seville (2/3 done)

Roger Zimmermann

Art, I don't understand why you have such a bad gas mileage. I have a '56 de Ville with the standard rear axle and, on long distance I get 13l/100 km (about 18 mpg). Speed on long distance is about 110 km/h or 68 mph.
On the Brougham and Biarritz, there is another matter. Engine with twin carbs set-up are a disaster for fuel economy for little more performance, if any.
1956 Sedan de Ville (sold)
1956 Eldorado Biarritz
1957 Eldorado Brougham (sold)
1972 Coupe de Ville
2011 DTS
CLCMRC benefactor #101

Caddy Wizard

#12
The H-M Dual Range transmissions from 52-55 are fantastic.  They are bullet-proof, smooth, crisp, and efficient.  Fuel mileage went down a good bit when the Jetaway was introduced in 56.  I get 8.5 to 9 mpg around town with radial tires and the engine in perfect tune in my 56.  On the highway, I can get up to about 16 if I drive slowly.  14mpg on the highway is more typical for me.  My numbers are typical for 56 owners, I think.


By comparison, back in the day, the 1954 Cadillac models got 14mpg around town and 17mpg on the highway (this is data from the Cadillac owners themselves -- I looked at a survey of 1954 Cadillac owners from Popular Mechanics back then).  So it was a huge drop-off in mileage when the Jetaway came out.


Since I drive the car for daily transportation, I tend to pay attention to fuel economy more than most owners of old Cads.  There is a big difference in fuel costs between 8.5mpg and 14mpg...



Art Gardner         
Art Gardner


1955 S60 Fleetwood sedan (now under resto -- has been in paint shop since June 2022!)
1955 S62 Coupe (future show car? 2/3 done)
1958 Eldo Seville (2/3 done)

dplotkin

#13
Art: I can appreciate how many like the shift quality of the old dual range Hyra-Matic over that of the controlled coupling Hydra-Matic. Rolls Royce agreed. They never used the 56 contolled coupling unit. They stuck with the Dual Range (which they produced themselves under license) up to the late 60's before turning to the Turbo 400.

It is very important that the TV rod be dialed in just so to get the timing & feel of the 2-3 shift correct. Remember that this shift, unlike the other 2, use friction elements (the multiple plate clutches) instead of dumping & filling the front coupling, so adjustment is critical. Some guys never can get this right only to eventually find they have a non-Cadillac WCFB or 4GC which does not throw the TV rod in the correct arc and no amount of ajusting will make it right.

These transmissions are smooth enough, and the 2-3 shift can be heard but almost not felt when all is right inside & the TV rod is spot on. I don't like them much either. The controlled coupling transmission soaks up a lot of engine power with the slippage of not one but two fluid couplings and the power it takes to run the pump that fills it, that's where the gas mileage is going. I think the Dynaflow in my 60 Electra is far nicer to drive than my Cadillac's controlled coupling fiasco.

If you can get your HM expert to get the innards right and dial in the TV rod, you should get her shifting to factory spec, which is pretty good, for GM's worst transmission design.

Dan
56 Fleetwood Sixty Special (Starlight silver over Dawn Grey)
60 Buick Electra six window
60 Chrysler 300 F Coupe
61 Plymouth Savoy Ram Inducted 413 Superstock
62 Pontiac Bonneville Vista
63 Chevy Impala convertable
63 Ford Galaxie XL fastback
65 Corvette convertable 396
68 Chrysler New Yorker

57caddy

any chance you know how to set up thje linkages on the jet way i cant get mine to go in reverse when its running keeps poping out when i selct it but if engine is off  i can start it in reverse and no prob at all reversing





Quote from: Hayden P on January 11, 2013, 05:46:34 AM
Bruce...you have convinced me... I am keeping my Jetaway !

Roger Zimmermann

Quote from: 57caddy on January 15, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
any chance you know how to set up thje linkages on the jet way i cant get mine to go in reverse when its running keeps poping out when i selct it but if engine is off  i can start it in reverse and no prob at all reversing
Recently, I overhauled a '58 Olds transmission (smae as yours) which had the same problem: when cold, there was reverse. When warm, no reverse. The reason: the reverse piston seal was that old/hard/cracked that it was evident why no reverse when warm. You may have the same problem, the seals don't last forever.
1956 Sedan de Ville (sold)
1956 Eldorado Biarritz
1957 Eldorado Brougham (sold)
1972 Coupe de Ville
2011 DTS
CLCMRC benefactor #101

dplotkin

#16
Quote from: 57caddy on January 15, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
any chance you know how to set up thje linkages on the jet way i cant get mine to go in reverse when its running keeps poping out when i selct it but if engine is off  i can start it in reverse and no prob at all reversing

Sounds like badly maladjusted shifter linkage. There is a procedure in the shop manual for setting that up. You shouldn't be able to start it in any gear, only neutral or park.

Dan
56 Fleetwood Sixty Special (Starlight silver over Dawn Grey)
60 Buick Electra six window
60 Chrysler 300 F Coupe
61 Plymouth Savoy Ram Inducted 413 Superstock
62 Pontiac Bonneville Vista
63 Chevy Impala convertable
63 Ford Galaxie XL fastback
65 Corvette convertable 396
68 Chrysler New Yorker

dadscad

Like Dan said, the shop manual has detailed instructions for adjusting the throttle and TV rod. They should be followed to the letter. If it starts in any gear position other than park and neutral, there is a problem. I would be checking the neutral safety switch for adjustment and function.

David
Enjoy The Ride,
David Thomas CLC #14765
1963 Coupe deVille

57caddy

thanxs guys
have found the nutral park swith is broken thats why its starting in gear
as for the reverse it reverses great when i select reverse and start it in reverse  its only when its running it wont go into reverse well it kinda dose but jumps out it dosnt jump out if i start it in reverse it stays there
have done the adjustments the way it says in the manual still no change ill just have to keep trying and get the reverse piston seal looked at

gouldsom

Hey Hayden
Ive got plenty of parts for than Jetaway trans if you ever need em, including new bushes, and Im only 3 hrs away in New Zealand.
Ive never had and trouble with mine.
Regards Richard