In the 60’s my dad was a dealer and bought and sold many Chevys with the Turboglide. He was constantly sending them to Suburban Transmission in Waltham and having them convert them over to Powerglide transmissions. My pals and I converted many to sticks.
@@bradzimmerman3171 Back in the 1950's, "best" sure as heck wasn't Toyota...aside from the Land Cruiser, they were a joke back then...nor Honda..maker of cheap motorbikes....
I had a 58 Impala 348 turboglide. After 2nd failure I converted it to a powerglide & put over 100,000 miles on the car. Except for the transmission, it was a great car
Many Chevy owners had their cars switched back to Powerglide & many Buicks were switched over to the earlier Twin Turbine units from the infamous Triple Turbine....
I learned to drive at 16 on my Dad's 1961 Impala with Turboglide. It was smooth as silk, kept it for 3 years then got a '64 Impala with Power Glida as the Turbo Glide was discontinued. Never any problems, the engines on our '61 was a 283 with 4 barrel carb, seems all Turbo Glide cars had a 4 barrel, my friend had a 348 engine, 4 barrel with Turbo Glide on his '61 bubble top Impala. The '61 Impala was beautiful, my next door neighbor had a white 61 Impala convertible with red interior, my dream car still. There is one in the movie "Goodfellas" just like it.
I had a 57 Chevy with the Turbo Glide, and it was sick in acceleration because of too much slip, similar to Buick's Dyno Flow transmission. I soon replaced it with a 4-speed straight drive. It made a tremendous difference in the performance of the car.
I don't remember the Turboglide being harder to work on. I remember it actually had a drain plug in the torque converter; so that was pretty cool. The early three spoke turbine versions would break behind a 348 and sprags did wear out but that happend with all of them back then. Never owned one myself but guys I knew did have them and they were not especially dificult.
I bought a used 59 Impala in 64 that had Turboglide with 348 engine and 280 horse. I didn't like the Turboglide and how it seemed to never shift. The car was beautiful with gray exterior and red interior. Even with tri power it wasn't a fast car. Found that the center carb only worked and not the other two carbs. The engine heat riser was stuck shut and all the exhaust came out only one side of the exhaust pipe. Got that all finally fixed and after all that, it was a really fast car, wished I still owned it today. Girlfriend at that time really loved that 59 Impala, very beautiful car of the day.
@@cabletie69 There's an inspection cover on the underside of the transmission that you pull off to expose the torque converter. Turn the engine over until the plug is at the bottom and remove it. Can't remember if there's a vent plug 180 degrees off from the drain plug or not.
Most transmission shops refused to work on them. They were usually replaced with a Powerglide. It took some modifications to do this but it was the best solution.
My first car at sixteen was a 57 Chevy which was ten years old at the time. It just had the 283 and two-speed auto. It still could do 80 miles an hour easily.
We had a 59 impala with the 348 turbo glide. We also had a 56 Packard with the 352 and ultramatic. The Chevy was a replacement for our 1949 Buick Roadmaster with Dynaflow. The roadmaster was terrible on acceleration, fuel consumption, etc. The Impala had 100 more horsepower and was still terrible on acceleration and fuel consumption. 9:33 our car of choice was the Packard. Both fast and reliable.
They were junk because people couldn't wrap their heads around the simplicity and unique tolerances. They were not powerhouse units for sure, but for boulevard drivers they were good. I built a few of these and found them a lot simpler than the Hydros of the day, even though I had no use for them either. I opened my first transmission shop in 1966 and got a lot of these in the door --- and I spent a lot of time getting to know them, as solid info was hard to come by since the factory was keeping much of the tech-specs close to the vest ... a big mistake even for a long-gone transmission!
Switch mine to a three speed out of a wreck. Lived on a Northern highway, so my car got a lot of mileage. 52,000 miles when I replaced the auto, never really had problems with it, except in the winter. It didn’t like -35 degrees weather.
In 1989, when I was 17 old, I had an elderly acquaintance who worked with GM back in the day tell me what he noticed about the Turbo Glide. He informed that the majority of the Turbo Glides turned out to be so bad that people ended up taking them out & putting Powerglides in. Then I noticed how cast iron Powerglides became for more common on 348 powered Impalas and even more by the years after '58. Almost all 348 powered '60 Impalas I've seen were w/ Powerglides (for an automatic) & no '61 have I ever seen w/ a Turbo Glide. And that cast iron Powerglide was a pain in many ways. The aluminum Powerglide that got started in '62 proved to be all the good things that the cast iron Powerglide should've been but wasn't. Many reliable sources confirmed that to me. And I can attest that, myself now that I have a ''64 Impala SS w/ 327/300 horsepower and Powerglide. Cast iron Powerglides were officially obsolete by '63. My '64 shifts way better than any pre-'63 Chevy w/ cast iron Powerglide. I'm so sure of that that I don't even think I need to drive anything w/ a cast iron Powerglide.
@@jamesbosworth4191There must've been 1 or 2 of those Turbo Glides still sitting around at one of the assembly plants for the '61 model line and that's why that '61 had one go in it. To think of it, I may've spotted one '61 convertible with a Turbo Glide. And I do remember seeing couple '60 Impalas with 348 & Turbo Glide in Hemmings. But at least 99% of all '60 and '61 Impalas with 348s and automatics had Powerglides.
Buick also offered the same transmission under the name flight pitch dynaflow. Both were prone to breakage if you floored it in grade retard.owner manual stated not to do this but no one listened.gr on shift quadrant was for Jake brake on downhill only.
When in high school 50+years back, a friend had a the turbo glide with 283 engine. Installed in 4 door hardtop Impalla. Smooth as glass and had sufficient power for normal driving.
The big issues with this trans and the very similar Buick Flight Pitch DynaFlow were the excessive RPM they generated - often over-revving the engine - and the misuse of the Hill-Retard/Grade-Retard range. You could NOT try to accelerate when in that range. You risked destroying the 5 element torque converter, but many people ignored the warning and tried to do it anyway, much to their regret. They thought it was merely a Lo range.
Thanks. Due to your description, I'm confident that my dad's 57 Chevy had a Turbo Glide trans as he often had trouble getting the "grade retarder" to work properly. Perhaps because of the tranny was why when I was looking to buy my first car (in the 1970's) he wouldn't sell it to me. I was so bummed.
The torqueflite, of the identical period, was better in every way. At the time drag racers were finding ways to use it behind GM engines because of it's incredible consistency in repeatable results.
@@tonysendrick6347 One of the reasons Powerglide is in so much demand for racing is that, while all transmissions have internal "parasitic" power losses, Powerglide has about the lowest loss of any transmission in the industry.
The Turbo 400 wasn't available in Chevies for another decade. The powerglide, in it's day was draconian and was still being used in modern passenger cars as late as1973. I was working at a Plymouth stealership during the second energy crisis in 79' when we took in a 67' Skylark with a 350 and powerglide. We couldn't keep gas in it for test drives, with it sucking gas worse than an old Ford. I was out with a guy on a test drive and he said "when's it gonna shift up?".Other than for certain types of drag racing today, what a useless transmission for the street.l@@tonysendrick6347
First, any transmission with a fluid coupling or torque converter is a CVT. That is how the original Packard Ultramatic and Buick DynaFlow worked. Packard added a lock-up torque converter, which bypassed the CVT function. Buick DynaFlow later employed a 2-pitch stator to give the cars an extra push when needed(initial take-off and at full throttle). The TurboGlide was Chevrolet's answer to the non-shifting Buick DynaFlow. The first problem was that Chevrolet drivers were used to transmissions which shifted and didn't understand the TurboGlide, nor it's slushbox nature. If they wanted a car with a slushbox they'd have bought a Buick. With torque converter or fluid coupling non-gear shifting transmissions, fluid cooling was a serious concern. Requiring the fluid to do most of the work put a strain on it. Overheated fluid won't do what the fluid was meant to do and was disastrous to the other components which required the fluid to operate. Buick adopted the principles of this triple-turbine non-shifting transmission in 1958, but saw the writing on the wall and discontinued it after the 1959 model year. Chevrolet didn't. After replacing the TurboGlide with a conventional PowerGlide by dealers under warranty, Chevrolet realized that the transmission wasn't such a good idea. Yes, 1961 was the last model year for this ill-fated transmission. Not to just through the TurboGlide away, with it's aluminum one-piece case, the automatic became the basis for the next-generation PowerGlide in 1962. It was a wise move which extended the lifespan of the PowerGlide into the 1971 model year. It was also employed in all of GM's other makes, as the base automatic, except Cadillac.
I have one that came out of a 1960 model impala. It was originally behind 348. It is just a core and probably has not been in operation in more than 50 years. I have not taken it apart yet so I don't know what condition it's in.
I am a 73 year old man. When I was growing up I had an uncle who owned a 1960 Chevrolet Station Wagon that had the Chevrolet Turboglide Transmission. I remember that car would accelerate smoothly with no detectable shifts. I remember that when the gas pedal was pressed to the floor, the engine speed would smoothly increase from the switch pitch torque converter changing the blade angle on the stator of the torque converter. This transmission was a highly unique transmission. My uncle also had a 1964 Chevrolet Station Wagon with the 2 speed power glide transmission. Both cars had the same V8 engine. He would say that the 1960 station wagon accelerated quicker than the 1964 station wagon. In addition to the mechanical problems, when I was young I used to hear that another reason this transmission failed to catch on was because people were not used to a car that had no detectable gear shifts.
I’m nearly your age at 72. When my BIL was dating my sister he had a 1960 Impala convertible with a turboglide. Shortly after they married the trans lunched itself and was replaced with a powerglide. The transmission shop called it the Terrible-glide.
@@Kandyman54 I never knew if my childhood uncle had problems with the Turboglide transmission on his 1960 Chevrolet Station Wagon. As a child I remembered it as the car that had no detectable shifts and being different from other automatic transmission cars.
"...another reason this transmission failed to catch on was because people were not used to a car that had no detectable gear shifts." Like today's CVTs.
The "real" Hydramatics, the true 4spd versions, in spite of weight, cost, & almost ludicrous complexity actually were surprisingly rugged, reliable transmissions that performed well. GM sold millions of them, even to other car manufacturers & not just the small "independents". Ford bought them for Lincolns from 1950-55. Rolls Royce bought the rights to manufacture them under license (although they were never granted the rights to the Hydramatic name, referring to it simply as "the Automatic Gearbox"). The only real fly in the ointment was the "chopped up" pared down "Halfamatic" Slim-Jim or Roto-Hydramatic 3 spd. Those had their share of issues & were not particularly well liked.
The turboglide are Chevrolet's adaptation of the Buick triple turbine flight pitch dynaflow. The Buick design didn't last any longer than the Chevrolet design. For a lot of the same reasons. There is no way to design a torque converter that can multiply torque hydraulically without gears and not generate a tremendous amount of heat or consume a large amount of fuel.
The earlier dynaflows in Buicks were actually very good on gas and didn't overheat, the big problem with them is they leaked every where and we're gutless off the line I have one in my 55 Buick I get around 22 miles per gallon highway. It's shocking.
@@aprules2 22 mi per gallon is a little more than fantastic for a 1955 Buick. 15 on the highway would be a little more reasonable and believable. That's a twin turbine dynaflow that came out after 1953. Quite different from the 1948 transmission.
@@tonysendrick6347 The Turbo 400 was one of the all-time great automatics. The Powerglide, while not in the same performance league in street tune, was none the less extremely reliable.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Don't remember the YT "channel" but there's a great drag race video. '65 Chevelle SS (Still a relative "lightweight") 327/300hp Powerglide, 3.55 rear gears V/S a '68 Coronet R/T 440 w/Torqueflite (something of a heavyweight by comparison, it was a convertible & seemed to be optioned as more of a luxury cruiser than a true muscle car & I believe 2.93 rear. Not a real "performance" set-up). Nevertheless, given the huge difference in engine size & the fact that the Dodge still had the OVERALL gearing advantage (Torqueflite low being more than enough to offset the rear gears V/S Powerglide low) the little PG 327 outran him anyway. Powerglide was apparently better than most people thought....
@@jerrycallender-qm7zr We had friends that also had their '60 Impala changed to Powerglide. Said the Turboglide could really take off, but too many other problems....
I had a 61 Chevy with the turboglide, what junk it was. In reality it was junk, the car actually had less than a thousand miles but had been in a really bad accident and would be what we now call a salvage title car. In 1961 I bought the car from the body shop that had repaired it. I didn't like the car so quickly sold it at considerable profit. I replaced it with a perfect $100. 1951Chevy fastback.
I’m 78 years old. One of my friends bought a used 57’ Chevy convertible in 1965 with an automatic. Six months later, the transmission died and we converted it to a 3speed stick for about $125, was it a turboglide, I don’t know. My dad bought a new 64’ Chevy Impala, 4 dr hdtp, 283 with a 2 speed powerglide automatic. The trans had no problems. My dad’s next car was a 68’ Chevy Impala, 4 dr hdtp, and I convinced him to buy a 327 with a 4 barrel carburetor and a Turbohydromatic 3 speed transmission, this was one of the best cars we ever owned, driven by 4 family members, till it had almost 200.000 miles. Most cars in those days never reached 100,000 miles. We lived in the Chicago area from 1953 till today. PS: Cars have been my hobby since I was 18 years old. I have done most of the repairs from the beginning. I was a Chevyman from the beginning till the early 90’s and switched to Japanese cars, mainly Hondas, and in 2017 to my first Toyota. Any questions or comments, I can share a lot of information! Thanksss!!!
It’s interesting when Chevrolet (GM) did everything possible to convince the public that their products were the best since they had the latest and greatest tech, but ended up being a disaster since none of it was proven. Not to mention, the crappy and dangerous x-frame chassis GM was using around this time as well.
@@seana806 The original Hydramatic was an excellent transmission, but it was very complex and expensive to produce. So they tried to produce something cheaper and less complex, and failed miserably. The Turboglide. The Roto-Hydramatic (Slim-Jim). The Super Turbine 300. So GM had to do something that they never do. They licenced the Simpson gearset from Chrysler, who was using it in the Torqueflite for the Turbo-Hydramatic 400. Ford did the same for their C4 and C6 transmissions. There's a whole series of articles on automatic transmission development on the Ate Up with Motor website.
my uncle had a 57 nomad he restored in the early 80's....he yanked the turboglde out retrofit a muncie 4 speed stick transmission...never had an issue with it
Had one in a 57 chevy drove it from the RGV to Wisconsin. They only had 2 speeds and reverse. But the planetary ring gear and gears gave it some other speeds in each speed .But i think it was a power glide .
@@ostrich67Four very very different transmissions. Buick & Chevrolet engineers worked together on the design for original 1st generation Dynaflow/Powerglide. They were essentially the same tranny except each division built their own. (Buicks were much heavier & more powerful so they built a "beefier" version than Chevy but design & operation was the same.) These were "pure" torque converter types & used NO gear reduction in normal driving. They worked, not sure how they resolved all the heat issues, but it didn't seem to be a major problem. Biggest problem was sluggish getaway. Both divisions decided something better was needed, hence 2nd gen Powerglide & new "Twin Turbine Dynaflow were both introduced in 1953. Two entirely different transmissions. Two different ways to improve performance. Chevy engineers simplified their torque converter to a common 3 element design and added the necessary control mechanisms for automated shifting between 2 gears. Buick engineers still wanted the seamless experience of a non shifting trans & redesigned their tranny with a planetary gearset in the center of the converter. Similarly to what was shown here in the Turboglide video the primary force of the oil was directed at one turbine at startup which drove the planetary in 1.6 reduction mode. As the speed went up & the driver backed off the accelerator the main force of the oil was to the other turbine to produce a 1:1 "high gear" ratio. The "Triple Turbine" design of the late '50 was again a whole new tranny with multiple planetary gearset connected to the three turbines with the idea of expanding on the Twin Turbine design for (supposedly) even better performance. People who had them said the cars could really go but there were way too many reliability issues & complaints of an "odd" driving experience where the engine wanted to rev disproportionately high relative to the drivers demands in various situations. Overall, it seemed the Chevy version had somewhat fewer complaints & was used 1957-61. The Buick seemed a total disaster & was used for '58 & maybe part of '59 & was quickly ditched in favor of a return to an updated & refined version of the Twin Turbine which was virtually bulletproof & had little in the way of driver complaints.
Turboglide was based on Buick Dynaflow well proven concepts. The attempt to build a lighter, less expensive version of Dynaflow failed due to the Grade Retarder in lieu of a low range gear, among other defects. I used a ‘59 Impala 283 w/ Turboglide and it was great. The Buick connection should be part of the discussion.
My 1st job after school was as a partsman for our lcal Chevy dealer. I had a 57 and we hung our keys on the service board in case we got a car delivery and need room. There were a lot of "upgrades" and they would grab my keys to do my car 1st just in case there were hiccups 😐 One of the changes was renaming the Hill Retarder to Grade Retarder because people who hadn't read the owner's manual would pull out to pass and shift to HR thinking it was high range.😢
Echoed by the early Chevy Bolts that had the max regen/one-pedal driving mode marked as L on the PRNDL selector. They, however, will happily run all day in L and do so under highway conditions as long as the driver's willing to put up with it as suboptimal for those conditions.
Not all of us feel that way, as long as the transmission is well matched to the engine. I had a 2013 Nissan Maxima with the “notorious” JATCO CVT. That tranny with the powerful Nissan VQ series 3.5 L V6 was great. Smooth and powerful. It didn’t drone on acceleration. I never missed feeling upshifts as I accelerated. On the highway, if you needed to step on it to pass, it did a “downshift” of sorts which made it feel like a traditional geared automatic. I traded it in on a Lexus ES350 earlier this year, mainly because I don’t like the looks of the current Maxima and it also feels smaller and more claustrophobic on the inside than my 2013 Maxima was. But I didn’t mind the “shiftless” transmission in my Maxima at all. I think it’s because the engine was so powerful. If it had a tiny 4-cylinder, maybe I wouldn’t have liked it. I’ve heard that combo tends to drone and is not satisfying.
Oddly enough it seems better than the cvt of today when launched and several years after. When you consider technological changes and improvements over the years the modern cvt was more of a step backwards.
The main issue with the Turboglide transmission, Chevrolet obviously did not do enough research and development time. Had they performed enough real life road tests to see what would happen. One issue was that is was very detrimental to drive in the Hill Retard/Grade Retard position on the shift quadrant, this was for engine braking only. One thing that helped was an Air Cooled transmission cooler before the fluid was routed to the radiator transmission cooler. These transmissions were an option on the performance engines, like the Power Pack 283, and the later 348 cu in engine. I do not ever recall seeing a 6 cylinder engine with a Turboglide, but probably would have been a little more durable. Selling the transmission, and let the Customer do the testing did not work very well, as there were a lot of issues with transmission case failures, Fluid passage ways leaking, and cracking and the wrong passage getting pressure etc.
Actually, the Turbo Glide was NOT available with the highest performance 348. I think you could get Turbo Glide with the hydraulic lifter Tri-power, but not with the solid-lifter engines. The Powerglide, on the other hand, was available with the 305 horse 348.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Yes, you are correct. I think the 305 was the police pursuit or interceptor version that could be ordered, and with the power glide.
i guess you could call it the first cvt but better than most cvt's today,my brother had one in a 59 impala with a 348,it never broke but he replaced it with a 4 speed stick much later
You are forgetting the 1948 - 63 Buick DynaFlow and the original 1950 - 52 Chevrolet Powerglide. Those units were the first CVTs. They fell short of the acceleration motorists wanted. The Turbo glide and in the next year the Buick Flight Pitch Dynaflow aimed to provide the seamless power delivery of those units but with the performance of Hydramatic. They failed to do so, despite costing more money
@@johnzangari3432 The term "CTV" didn't yet exist, but in a sense, they were CTVs, as they didn't shift between gears. The torque converter was always varying it's multiplication ratio according to load, although I admit not very efficiently.
@@SurferJoe46 I seem to recall that the first Ford automatics from the early fifties had a large air scoop on the side of the bell housing to cool the fluid coupler, talk about sucking up every bit of road dirt, rocks and debris.
GM at the time used Type A trans fluid, which had whale oil (WHALE OIL!) in it which broke down when over-heated, so if the trans had high heat conditions, which the TG often did from its complexity, they could fail. A TG, if it could be modified to run on synthetic, would be cool. But, WHALE oil!!
Personally, I found a modified automatic with its crisp shift( via a modified valve body), very satisfying. Why would someone interested in performance, want something that had imperceptable shifting ?
Dear Mr. Zebra, what's up with the English accent? 😆 I came over to give this a look after watching the Chevelle vs. Plymouth video on your main channel. In that video, you said that this video wasn't doing well, so I had to take a look. To my surprise, what seems like some bloke from London is doing the voice-over. Why? I'm a long-time fan of yours, because you're funny and irreverent and a gear head. This is a really good video, but it's not you. If it's gonna have the Zebra name on it, it should be you doing what you do. Cheers!
I had a 1958 in high school. It was 10 years old. It was smooth, it got terrible gas mileage. When it failed, it was too expensive to repair. I had to scrap the car.
I understand that it was little more than a one speed (direct drive only in Forward all the time) but that there were at least two output shafts from the torque converter (a solid one inside a larger diameter hollow one?) with whichever one that was turning slower decoupled with a sprag or overrunning clutch allowing "seamless" transfer from one to the other as throttle position and vehicle speed changed. But still a lousy one speed transmission with the further complication of the attempt at dynamic braking (did the overrunning clutches effectively allow the engine to decouple and coast when the car was going downhill with the driver's foot off the gas ?
Yes --- decoupling was a problem - especially in California where idling in neutral, downhill was illegal and they let GM know it was not unnoticed and they didn't like it one bit! California decided to not let GM bring the TG into the state anymore until the transmission stayed in some sort of gear on coast. I read that rule many years ago when I took my Brake-Lamp-Smog license tests.
The British verbosity and repetition of statements using different words never ceases to amaze. How many words do you need to describe something over and over again. Their reiteration of ideas with wordy, low content yammer always make me marvel. I mean, how many times do you have to say the same thing in different ways to fill ten minutes of video?
I believe this is partially GENERATED content possibly an AI generated voice. Note how the voice says Turboglide the exact same way each time. Also who says two hundred eighty three instead of 283 when describing an engine size?
They are head of their Time with a gear with a variable torque converter to multiple torque the same As modern day car with a throw away gear box not worth it to rebuild
@@jamesbosworth4191 You may very well be correct --- I don't have a LOT of working experiences with them. The 409 was favored although everyone "knew" it was a truck block --- but the 348 was in our 1959 short bed C10 shop truck with a PG and it was impressive, but wouldn't rev worth beans.
@@SurferJoe46 The Hydraulic ones - both sizes - wouldn't, but the solid lifter versions would, but the 63 - 65 version with dual quads was fragile. The 409 horsepower of the 62 engine seems to have been the upper limit. Any more than that had you right on the edge of destruction.
The Turboglide was Chevy's attempt to copy the smooth Dynaflow... which, unfortunately wasn't a worthy objective... the Dynaflow grossly wasted power and was more complex. The objective should have been a multi-gear tranny. Wait a minute ! GM already had the hydramatic. Why didn't they simply use that (or an improved version) ? That would have saved my bro from substituting an old-fashioned but trusty Powerglide into his '57 BelAir Sport Sedan, as was commonly done when the TGlides inevitably died
Most sources day the Buick people didn't like the Hydramatic's noticeable shifting. They called it the Hydrajeck During WW II Buick produced the M-18 Hellacat tank destroyer, for which they developed a hydraulic drive. That was the model for the Dynaflow. You must remember Oldsmobile was becoming a performance brand (Rocket Eight ertc.) while Buick went for a more sedate crowd. Oldsmobile Div. Call Buick's tranny the Dynaslush and it did live down the that name. Engine s for Dynaflow cars had increased compression to make up for the power lost. My mom had a 55 Buick Century with the automatic and you never felt a think when my Dad floored it. You just heard the engine roar. However he also said the car had no passing power due to the lack of a genuine second gear. Both the Buicks and Powerglide Chevys had a habit of stalling when you made a slow turn and accelerated. I guess the first gear was too tall.
The hydramatic was very expensive to manufacture, and the newer version (the slim jim) proved to be troublesome. The Dynaflow was not as efficient as the earlier Hydramatic, but was cheaper to build and was much more reliable than the slim jim. The Turboglide and the Buick triple turbine transmissions were not the answer, but the Turbo-hydramatic was a great replacement for these outdated automatics.
@@craigcardwell4143 It would have actually been less costly for GM to offer the hydramatic, no development/training/replacement costs and no loss if customer goodwill
The problem with the Hydro was that it was the same gear ratios as a granny-box manual transmission in medium-duty trucks of the day. Each gear was a multiple of the preceding gear and LOW was really GRANNY like the truck manual 4-speed. It was wasteful of fuel because you got high RPM - then a shift - and the engine was right back to idle speed for the next gear, chugging to accelerate. I know --- I raced with a B&M Hydro for years and if you had huge cubic inches it didn't matter much ---- but a 9-grand screaming 301 had some struggles with the wide gear ratios. 1st gear was good for about 10 feet off the starting line/red light ---- and then 2nd was a huge hit with a lot of tire spin ... if the race wasn't won by then, you were toast to a manual 4-speed on the street.
Holden had the tri Matic transmission series 1 was terrible series 2 a bit better series 3 was a good and when it worked good and changed gear as good as a BMW
The GM tri-matic was produced in France, it was purchased by BMW for several years, and installed in cars built for export markets, including the US. Maybe Australia too?
I think all automatics that are not dual clutch use torque converters and that DOES NOT make a it a CVT. Do some more research before publish ing this garbage.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
In the 60’s my dad was a dealer and bought and sold many Chevys with the Turboglide. He was constantly sending them to Suburban Transmission in Waltham and having them convert them over to Powerglide transmissions.
My pals and I converted many to sticks.
The hydramatic was the best in olds and pontiac of the 50s
@@DannyLeech-s2d And Cadillacs as well.
I like the way ai keeps summarizing what it already said, and flaunting it's extensive vocabulary.
The Chevy Powerglide was the best automatic transmission of the time for Chevrolet.
cast iron 4 speed hydromatic in trucks dealers put in cars
Yikes…best and chebby in the same sentence
@@bradzimmerman3171 Back in the 1950's, "best" sure as heck wasn't Toyota...aside from the Land Cruiser, they were a joke back then...nor Honda..maker of cheap motorbikes....
I had a 58 Impala 348 turboglide. After 2nd failure I converted it to a powerglide & put over 100,000 miles on the car. Except for the transmission, it was a great car
Many Chevy owners had their cars switched back to Powerglide & many Buicks were switched over to the earlier Twin Turbine units from the infamous Triple Turbine....
Transmission shops hated these! Most were converted to Powerglides after repeated failures.
Outstanding look at the turbo glide. Like the fuel injection system of the time, it suffered from being ahead of its time and ignorance. ~ Chuck
I didnt realize Detroit was using robotics in the 50's. This has been a closely guarded secret. 0:23
I learned to drive at 16 on my Dad's 1961 Impala with Turboglide. It was smooth as silk, kept it for 3 years then got a '64 Impala with Power Glida as the Turbo Glide was discontinued. Never any problems, the engines on our '61 was a 283 with 4 barrel carb, seems all Turbo Glide cars had a 4 barrel, my friend had a 348 engine, 4 barrel with Turbo Glide on his '61 bubble top Impala. The '61 Impala was beautiful, my next door neighbor had a white 61 Impala convertible with red interior, my dream car still. There is one in the movie "Goodfellas" just like it.
My 1957 Chevy Power Pack V8 with a Turboglide was not very fast until I replaced it with a Pontiac 4 speed. WOW! what a difference.
I had a 57 Chevy with the Turbo Glide, and it was sick in acceleration because of too much slip, similar to Buick's Dyno Flow transmission. I soon replaced it with a 4-speed straight drive. It made a tremendous difference in the performance of the car.
I don't remember the Turboglide being harder to work on. I remember it actually had a drain plug in the torque converter; so that was pretty cool. The early three spoke turbine versions would break behind a 348 and sprags did wear out but that happend with all of them back then. Never owned one myself but guys I knew did have them and they were not especially dificult.
I bought a used 59 Impala in 64 that had Turboglide with 348 engine and 280 horse. I didn't like the Turboglide and how it seemed to never shift. The car was beautiful with gray exterior and red interior. Even with tri power it wasn't a fast car. Found that the center carb only worked and not the other two carbs. The engine heat riser was stuck shut and all the exhaust came out only one side of the exhaust pipe. Got that all finally fixed and after all that, it was a really fast car, wished I still owned it today. Girlfriend at that time really loved that 59 Impala, very beautiful car of the day.
@@phantomblott1 59 was the best of the X-frames. Would love the one you had.
How did you acess the converter drain?
@@cabletie69 There's an inspection cover on the underside of the transmission that you pull off to expose the torque converter. Turn the engine over until the plug is at the bottom and remove it. Can't remember if there's a vent plug 180 degrees off from the drain plug or not.
Most transmission shops refused to work on them. They were usually replaced with a Powerglide. It took some modifications to do this but it was the best solution.
My first car at sixteen was a 57 Chevy which was ten years old at the time. It just had the 283 and two-speed auto. It still could do 80 miles an hour easily.
We had a 59 impala with the 348 turbo glide. We also had a 56 Packard with the 352 and ultramatic. The Chevy was a replacement for our 1949 Buick Roadmaster with Dynaflow. The roadmaster was terrible on acceleration, fuel consumption, etc. The Impala had 100 more horsepower and was still terrible on acceleration and fuel consumption. 9:33 our car of choice was the Packard. Both fast and reliable.
I built a couple of these back when I owned a transmission shop. They were junk
If you haven't noticed, everything on the internet is junk.
It was junk at my transmission shop too.
Now they got 10 speeds!!!!😑😳
They were junk because people couldn't wrap their heads around the simplicity and unique tolerances. They were not powerhouse units for sure, but for boulevard drivers they were good. I built a few of these and found them a lot simpler than the Hydros of the day, even though I had no use for them either.
I opened my first transmission shop in 1966 and got a lot of these in the door --- and I spent a lot of time getting to know them, as solid info was hard to come by since the factory was keeping much of the tech-specs close to the vest ... a big mistake even for a long-gone transmission!
Switch mine to a three speed out of a wreck. Lived on a Northern highway, so my car got a lot of mileage. 52,000 miles when I replaced the auto, never really had problems with it, except in the winter. It didn’t like -35 degrees weather.
In 1989, when I was 17 old, I had an elderly acquaintance who worked with GM back in the day tell me what he noticed about the Turbo Glide. He informed that the majority of the Turbo Glides turned out to be so bad that people ended up taking them out & putting Powerglides in.
Then I noticed how cast iron Powerglides became for more common on 348 powered Impalas and even more by the years after '58. Almost all 348 powered '60 Impalas I've seen were w/ Powerglides (for an automatic) & no '61 have I ever seen w/ a Turbo Glide. And that cast iron Powerglide was a pain in many ways.
The aluminum Powerglide that got started in '62 proved to be all the good things that the cast iron Powerglide should've been but wasn't. Many reliable sources confirmed that to me. And I can attest that, myself now that I have a ''64 Impala SS w/ 327/300 horsepower and Powerglide.
Cast iron Powerglides were officially obsolete by '63. My '64 shifts way better than any pre-'63 Chevy w/ cast iron Powerglide. I'm so sure of that that I don't even think I need to drive anything w/ a cast iron Powerglide.
My Aunt Florence's neighbor had a 61 with TurboGlide.
@@jamesbosworth4191There must've been 1 or 2 of those Turbo Glides still sitting around at one of the assembly plants for the '61 model line and that's why that '61 had one go in it. To think of it, I may've spotted one '61 convertible with a Turbo Glide. And I do remember seeing couple '60 Impalas with 348 & Turbo Glide in Hemmings. But at least 99% of all '60 and '61 Impalas with 348s and automatics had Powerglides.
@@kevinhabener1279 Everybody by then realized that it was no good.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Yep.
Last year that Buick used Dynaflow was 1963. For the 1964 models they finally got wise and switched to Turbo -Hydramatic.
Buick also offered the same transmission under the name flight pitch dynaflow. Both were prone to breakage if you floored it in grade retard.owner manual stated not to do this but no one listened.gr on shift quadrant was for Jake brake on downhill only.
When in high school 50+years back, a friend had a the turbo glide with 283 engine. Installed in 4 door hardtop Impalla. Smooth as glass and had sufficient power for normal driving.
The big issues with this trans and the very similar Buick Flight Pitch DynaFlow were the excessive RPM they generated - often over-revving the engine - and the misuse of the Hill-Retard/Grade-Retard range. You could NOT try to accelerate when in that range. You risked destroying the 5 element torque converter, but many people ignored the warning and tried to do it anyway, much to their regret. They thought it was merely a Lo range.
Thanks. Due to your description, I'm confident that my dad's 57 Chevy had a Turbo Glide trans as he often had trouble getting the "grade retarder" to work properly. Perhaps because of the tranny was why when I was looking to buy my first car (in the 1970's) he wouldn't sell it to me. I was so bummed.
@@kennethhowell1272 He was probably afraid you would ruin it and probably didn't realize that the Turbo Glide could be swapped out for a Powerglide.
The torqueflite, of the identical period, was better in every way. At the time drag racers were finding ways to use it behind GM engines because of it's incredible consistency in repeatable results.
Funny the power glide and the turbo 400 is still being made by other co..GM sold the rights.. there still being made because they're that damn good
@@tonysendrick6347 One of the reasons Powerglide is in so much demand for racing is that, while all transmissions have internal "parasitic" power losses, Powerglide has about the lowest loss of any transmission in the industry.
The Turbo 400 wasn't available in Chevies for another decade. The powerglide, in it's day was draconian and was still being used in modern passenger cars as late as1973. I was working at a Plymouth stealership during the second energy crisis in 79' when we took in a 67' Skylark with a 350 and powerglide. We couldn't keep gas in it for test drives, with it sucking gas worse than an old Ford. I was out with a guy on a test drive and he said "when's it gonna shift up?".Other than for certain types of drag racing today, what a useless transmission for the street.l@@tonysendrick6347
At that time, beefed Hydromotive Hydramatics were popular...
First, any transmission with a fluid coupling or torque converter is a CVT. That is how the original Packard Ultramatic and Buick DynaFlow worked. Packard added a lock-up torque converter, which bypassed the CVT function. Buick DynaFlow later employed a 2-pitch stator to give the cars an extra push when needed(initial take-off and at full throttle).
The TurboGlide was Chevrolet's answer to the non-shifting Buick DynaFlow.
The first problem was that Chevrolet drivers were used to transmissions which shifted and didn't understand the TurboGlide, nor it's slushbox nature. If they wanted a car with a slushbox they'd have bought a Buick.
With torque converter or fluid coupling non-gear shifting transmissions, fluid cooling was a serious concern. Requiring the fluid to do most of the work put a strain on it. Overheated fluid won't do what the fluid was meant to do and was disastrous to the other components which required the fluid to operate.
Buick adopted the principles of this triple-turbine non-shifting transmission in 1958, but saw the writing on the wall and discontinued it after the 1959 model year. Chevrolet didn't.
After replacing the TurboGlide with a conventional PowerGlide by dealers under warranty, Chevrolet realized that the transmission wasn't such a good idea. Yes, 1961 was the last model year for this ill-fated transmission.
Not to just through the TurboGlide away, with it's aluminum one-piece case, the automatic became the basis for the next-generation PowerGlide in 1962. It was a wise move which extended the lifespan of the PowerGlide into the 1971 model year. It was also employed in all of GM's other makes, as the base automatic, except Cadillac.
My son has a 61 buick dailey driver and twin turbine trans has never had a problem. I know because i bought the car in 1976.
DynaFlow was rugged and reliable, it just didn't give good acceleration.
Is there any turbo glide transmission still working today or is there any one that could Fix it properly
I have one that came out of a 1960 model impala. It was originally behind 348. It is just a core and probably has not been in operation in more than 50 years. I have not taken it apart yet so I don't know what condition it's in.
There are a few, as now people want them because of their rarity.
I am a 73 year old man. When I was growing up I had an uncle who owned a 1960 Chevrolet Station Wagon that had the Chevrolet Turboglide Transmission. I remember that car would accelerate smoothly with no detectable shifts. I remember that when the gas pedal was pressed to the floor, the engine speed would smoothly increase from the switch pitch torque converter changing the blade angle on the stator of the torque converter. This transmission was a highly unique transmission. My uncle also had a 1964 Chevrolet Station Wagon with the 2 speed power glide transmission. Both cars had the same V8 engine. He would say that the 1960 station wagon accelerated quicker than the 1964 station wagon. In addition to the mechanical problems, when I was young I used to hear that another reason this transmission failed to catch on was because people were not used to a car that had no detectable gear shifts.
To many words not enough information
I’m nearly your age at 72.
When my BIL was dating my sister he had a 1960 Impala convertible with a turboglide. Shortly after they married the trans lunched itself and was replaced with a powerglide. The transmission shop called it the Terrible-glide.
@@Kandyman54 I never knew if my childhood uncle had problems with the Turboglide transmission on his 1960 Chevrolet Station Wagon. As a child I remembered it as the car that had no detectable shifts and being different from other automatic transmission cars.
They still aren't. Look at how many modern CVTs are programmed to fake "shift".
"...another reason this transmission failed to catch on was because people were not used to a car that had no detectable gear shifts."
Like today's CVTs.
I preferred the Oldsmobile hydramatic
The "real" Hydramatics, the true 4spd versions, in spite of weight, cost, & almost ludicrous complexity actually were surprisingly rugged, reliable transmissions that performed well. GM sold millions of them, even to other car manufacturers & not just the small "independents". Ford bought them for Lincolns from 1950-55. Rolls Royce bought the rights to manufacture them under license (although they were never granted the rights to the Hydramatic name, referring to it simply as "the Automatic Gearbox").
The only real fly in the ointment was the "chopped up" pared down "Halfamatic" Slim-Jim or Roto-Hydramatic 3 spd. Those had their share of issues & were not particularly well liked.
@@DejaView That was an unfortunate experiment. Never worked well, even brand new.
The turboglide are Chevrolet's adaptation of the Buick triple turbine flight pitch dynaflow. The Buick design didn't last any longer than the Chevrolet design. For a lot of the same reasons. There is no way to design a torque converter that can multiply torque hydraulically without gears and not generate a tremendous amount of heat or consume a large amount of fuel.
The earlier dynaflows in Buicks were actually very good on gas and didn't overheat, the big problem with them is they leaked every where and we're gutless off the line I have one in my 55 Buick I get around 22 miles per gallon highway. It's shocking.
@@aprules2 22 mi per gallon is a little more than fantastic for a 1955 Buick. 15 on the highway would be a little more reasonable and believable. That's a twin turbine dynaflow that came out after 1953. Quite different from the 1948 transmission.
@@aprules2 , I never had a Dynaflow that leaked like that. 1953 the Dynaflow came to life with the twin turbine converter.
The Chevy TurboGlide was first. Buick's Flight Pitch Dynaflow was the copy.
lock up converter like the Ultramatic would have solved
We named the turbos "buttermilk drive"
@@leoclegg3047 I called them TROUBLE GLIDES!
'Diarrhea Drive'
Dynaslush ?
@@frankmariani1259 We called them DynaSlow and DynaFlop. They were rugged and reliable though.
The PowerGlide is still a racing transmission for IMCA Modified class cars.
It is, but if the car is geared for normal driving, off-the-line performance is compromised vs a 3 or 4 speed automatic.
Powerglide good for bracket racing.... only one shift for consistency, usually shifted by air powered or electric solenoid and rpm switch.
GM sold off the rights for the power glide and the turbo 400.. still being made because they're that damn good
@@tonysendrick6347 The Turbo 400 was one of the all-time great automatics. The Powerglide, while not in the same performance league in street tune, was none the less extremely reliable.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Don't remember the YT "channel" but there's a great drag race video. '65 Chevelle SS (Still a relative "lightweight") 327/300hp Powerglide, 3.55 rear gears V/S a '68 Coronet R/T 440 w/Torqueflite (something of a heavyweight by comparison, it was a convertible & seemed to be optioned as more of a luxury cruiser than a true muscle car & I believe 2.93 rear. Not a real "performance" set-up). Nevertheless, given the huge difference in engine size & the fact that the Dodge still had the OVERALL gearing advantage (Torqueflite low being more than enough to offset the rear gears V/S Powerglide low) the little PG 327 outran him anyway. Powerglide was apparently better than most people thought....
Buick DynaFlow of that era used the same principle. Was it the same? Was the TurboGlide's fuel economy better or worse than the PowerGlide?
Great info! Thanks for posting!
My step-granddad had a 1960 Bel Air sedan with Turboglide. As I recall, after 5-6 months, he changed it for Powerglide.
@@jerrycallender-qm7zr We had friends that also had their '60 Impala changed to Powerglide. Said the Turboglide could really take off, but too many other problems....
@@jerrycallender-qm7zr I did a lot of those swaps.
I did some too in the mid 1960’s. Not a hard swap. I was working for a GM dealer at the time.
I had a 61 Chevy with the turboglide, what junk it was. In reality it was junk, the car actually had less than a thousand miles but had been in a really bad accident and would be what we now call a salvage title car. In 1961 I bought the car from the body shop that had repaired it. I didn't like the car so quickly sold it at considerable profit. I replaced it with a perfect $100. 1951Chevy fastback.
I’m 78 years old. One of my friends bought a used 57’ Chevy convertible in 1965 with an automatic. Six months later, the transmission died and we converted it to a 3speed stick for about $125, was it a turboglide, I don’t know. My dad bought a new 64’ Chevy Impala, 4 dr hdtp, 283 with a 2 speed powerglide automatic. The trans had no problems. My dad’s next car was a 68’ Chevy Impala, 4 dr hdtp, and I convinced him to buy a 327 with a 4 barrel carburetor and a Turbohydromatic 3 speed transmission, this was one of the best cars we ever owned, driven by 4 family members, till it had almost 200.000 miles. Most cars in those days never reached 100,000 miles. We lived in the Chicago area from 1953 till today.
PS: Cars have been my hobby since I was 18 years old. I have done most of the repairs from the beginning. I was a Chevyman from the beginning till the early 90’s and switched to Japanese cars, mainly Hondas, and in 2017 to my first Toyota. Any questions or comments, I can share a lot of information! Thanksss!!!
The more things change the more they stay the same. CVT's were junk then and they still are today. Better have towing insurance.
My Dad had one in a '61 Impala convertible. His uncle who owned a repair shop said, "Better hope it never breaks; they're unfixable".
It’s interesting when Chevrolet (GM) did everything possible to convince the public that their products were the best since they had the latest and greatest tech, but ended up being a disaster since none of it was proven. Not to mention, the crappy and dangerous x-frame chassis GM was using around this time as well.
@@seana806 The original Hydramatic was an excellent transmission, but it was very complex and expensive to produce. So they tried to produce something cheaper and less complex, and failed miserably. The Turboglide. The Roto-Hydramatic (Slim-Jim). The Super Turbine 300.
So GM had to do something that they never do. They licenced the Simpson gearset from Chrysler, who was using it in the Torqueflite for the Turbo-Hydramatic 400. Ford did the same for their C4 and C6 transmissions.
There's a whole series of articles on automatic transmission development on the Ate Up with Motor website.
Oh sure, they’re fixable. Do what a lot of people did back in the day, and yank it out and replace it with a Powerglide! 😂
Gm has always had problems with the execution of technology.
What do you think your grand children will have to say about you ?
my uncle had a 57 nomad he restored in the early 80's....he yanked the turboglde out retrofit a muncie 4 speed stick transmission...never had an issue with it
It was the run up for the THM350
Had one in a 57 chevy drove it from the RGV to Wisconsin. They only had 2 speeds and reverse. But the planetary ring gear and gears gave it some other speeds in each speed .But i think it was a power glide .
Sounds like an early attempt at the PowerGlide. Just subbed and first watch of your new channel 😎👍
The PowerGlide came out in 1950, so the TurboGlide was a more advanced version.
@@ostrich67Four very very different transmissions. Buick & Chevrolet engineers worked together on the design for original 1st generation Dynaflow/Powerglide. They were essentially the same tranny except each division built their own. (Buicks were much heavier & more powerful so they built a "beefier" version than Chevy but design & operation was the same.)
These were "pure" torque converter types & used NO gear reduction in normal driving. They worked, not sure how they resolved all the heat issues, but it didn't seem to be a major problem. Biggest problem was sluggish getaway. Both divisions decided something better was needed, hence 2nd gen Powerglide & new "Twin Turbine Dynaflow were both introduced in 1953. Two entirely different transmissions. Two different ways to improve performance. Chevy engineers simplified their torque converter to a common 3 element design and added the necessary control mechanisms for automated shifting between 2 gears. Buick engineers still wanted the seamless experience of a non shifting trans & redesigned their tranny with a planetary gearset in the center of the converter. Similarly to what was shown here in the Turboglide video the primary force of the oil was directed at one turbine at startup which drove the planetary in 1.6 reduction mode. As the speed went up & the driver backed off the accelerator the main force of the oil was to the other turbine to produce a 1:1 "high gear" ratio. The "Triple Turbine" design of the late '50 was again a whole new tranny with multiple planetary gearset connected to the three turbines with the idea of expanding on the Twin Turbine design for (supposedly) even better performance. People who had them said the cars could really go but there were way too many reliability issues & complaints of an "odd" driving experience where the engine wanted to rev disproportionately high relative to the drivers demands in various situations. Overall, it seemed the Chevy version had somewhat fewer complaints & was used 1957-61. The Buick seemed a total disaster & was used for '58 & maybe part of '59 & was quickly ditched in favor of a return to an updated & refined version of the Twin Turbine which was virtually bulletproof & had little in the way of driver complaints.
@@ostrich67test
@@ostrich67test
Turboglide was based on Buick Dynaflow well proven concepts. The attempt to build a lighter, less expensive version of Dynaflow failed due to the Grade Retarder in lieu of a low range gear, among other defects. I used a ‘59 Impala 283 w/ Turboglide and it was great. The Buick connection should be part of the discussion.
*The "Turbo-Slide" was a better transmission than the ... **_"Power-Slip"._*
Was this the slush drive transmission?
The mechanics at my grandfather's Chevrolet dealership called it "Terribleglide".
I remember it being called the troubleglide, or even the terrible glide.
Your opening sequence looks just like 2024 Havana.
That was Tulsa in the 50s
My 1st job after school was as a partsman for our lcal Chevy dealer.
I had a 57 and we hung our keys on the service board in case we got a car delivery and need room.
There were a lot of "upgrades" and they would grab my keys to do my car 1st just in case there were hiccups 😐
One of the changes was renaming the Hill Retarder to Grade Retarder because people who hadn't read the owner's manual would pull out to pass and shift to HR thinking it was high range.😢
Echoed by the early Chevy Bolts that had the max regen/one-pedal driving mode marked as L on the PRNDL selector. They, however, will happily run all day in L and do so under highway conditions as long as the driver's willing to put up with it as suboptimal for those conditions.
I used to have a '57 that came with one; by the time I got the car, someone had replaced it with a Powerglide.
I chose a Powerglide even in 2002 for my 1981 El Camino behind a 4.3L V6, neither of which were native to the El Camino.
And then there was Chryslers Torqueflyte, Probably the most rugged trans at its time,
Drivers like to feel a shift when driving. This is just another chapter of a car manufacturer using customers' cars as guinea pigs.
Not all of us feel that way, as long as the transmission is well matched to the engine. I had a 2013 Nissan Maxima with the “notorious” JATCO CVT. That tranny with the powerful Nissan VQ series 3.5 L V6 was great. Smooth and powerful. It didn’t drone on acceleration. I never missed feeling upshifts as I accelerated. On the highway, if you needed to step on it to pass, it did a “downshift” of sorts which made it feel like a traditional geared automatic.
I traded it in on a Lexus ES350 earlier this year, mainly because I don’t like the looks of the current Maxima and it also feels smaller and more claustrophobic on the inside than my 2013 Maxima was.
But I didn’t mind the “shiftless” transmission in my Maxima at all. I think it’s because the engine was so powerful. If it had a tiny 4-cylinder, maybe I wouldn’t have liked it. I’ve heard that combo tends to drone and is not satisfying.
Oddly enough it seems better than the cvt of today when launched and several years after. When you consider technological changes and improvements over the years the modern cvt was more of a step backwards.
Any of these still on the road? Are rebuild kits even available?
I had a turbo glide in my 1957 Belaire and it didn’t seem very unusual.
The main issue with the Turboglide transmission, Chevrolet obviously did not do enough research and development time. Had they performed enough real life road tests to see what would happen. One issue was that is was very detrimental to drive in the Hill Retard/Grade Retard position on the shift quadrant, this was for engine braking only. One thing that helped was an Air Cooled transmission cooler before the fluid was routed to the radiator transmission cooler. These transmissions were an option on the performance engines, like the Power Pack 283, and the later 348 cu in engine. I do not ever recall seeing a 6 cylinder engine with a Turboglide, but probably would have been a little more durable. Selling the transmission, and let the Customer do the testing did not work very well, as there were a lot of issues with transmission case failures, Fluid passage ways leaking, and cracking and the wrong passage getting pressure etc.
Actually, the Turbo Glide was NOT available with the highest performance 348. I think you could get Turbo Glide with the hydraulic lifter Tri-power, but not with the solid-lifter engines. The Powerglide, on the other hand, was available with the 305 horse 348.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Yes, you are correct. I think the 305 was the police pursuit or interceptor version that could be ordered, and with the power glide.
i guess you could call it the first cvt but better than most cvt's today,my brother had one in a 59 impala with a 348,it never broke but he replaced it with a 4 speed stick much later
You are forgetting the 1948 - 63 Buick DynaFlow and the original 1950 - 52 Chevrolet Powerglide. Those units were the first CVTs. They fell short of the acceleration motorists wanted. The Turbo glide and in the next year the Buick Flight Pitch Dynaflow aimed to provide the seamless power delivery of those units but with the performance of Hydramatic. They failed to do so, despite costing more money
The Packard Ultramatic was similar.
@@ostrich67 Plus it had a locking clutch on the converter, as did the Studebaker automatic. Many people think that was a new 1980s concept.
They were not CVTs at all. They just slipped alot.
@@johnzangari3432 The term "CTV" didn't yet exist, but in a sense, they were CTVs, as they didn't shift between gears. The torque converter was always varying it's multiplication ratio according to load, although I admit not very efficiently.
@@ostrich67 not exactly Ultramatic was a two speed with a lock up converter
Apparently they didn’t think to include a transmission fluid cooler with the transmission.
Yeah they did --- fluid flow was before the heat exchanger in the radiator too, where it should go.
@@SurferJoe46 I seem to recall that the first Ford automatics from the early fifties had a large air scoop on the side of the bell housing to cool the fluid coupler, talk about sucking up every bit of road dirt, rocks and debris.
@@pauliedweasel The back of the converter had fins that acted like a fan.
Was it a glorified Dynaflow ?
No, it was a new concept. The Buick Flight Pitch Dynaflow was a larger version of the Turbo Glide.
GM at the time used Type A trans fluid, which had whale oil (WHALE OIL!) in it which broke down when over-heated, so if the trans had high heat conditions, which the TG often did from its complexity, they could fail. A TG, if it could be modified to run on synthetic, would be cool. But, WHALE oil!!
We always called it Flipper-in-a-can.
You do know 57 chevs had round dash gauges?
yeah --- but the faces were 120° inserts.
The BMW automatic transmission zf is a coss trimatic and Borg Warner
i realize it is a differnt ball game but i had an Oldsmobile "Jetaway" with variable turbine
Personally, I found a modified automatic with its crisp shift( via a modified valve body), very satisfying. Why would someone interested in performance, want something that had imperceptable shifting ?
Muito bom! Obrigado por compartilhar
Dear Mr. Zebra, what's up with the English accent? 😆 I came over to give this a look after watching the Chevelle vs. Plymouth video on your main channel. In that video, you said that this video wasn't doing well, so I had to take a look. To my surprise, what seems like some bloke from London is doing the voice-over. Why?
I'm a long-time fan of yours, because you're funny and irreverent and a gear head.
This is a really good video, but it's not you.
If it's gonna have the Zebra name on it, it should be you doing what you do.
Cheers!
I had a 1958 in high school. It was 10 years old. It was smooth, it got terrible gas mileage. When it failed, it was too expensive to repair. I had to scrap the car.
Should have just swapped in a Powerglide.
I was 12 in 1957 NO one liked the turbowglide. it was a failure.
A.I. crap
Buick st300 with switch pitch converter
I understand that it was little more than a one speed (direct drive only in Forward all the time) but that there were at least two output shafts from the torque converter (a solid one inside a larger diameter hollow one?) with whichever one that was turning slower decoupled with a sprag or overrunning clutch allowing "seamless" transfer from one to the other as throttle position and vehicle speed changed. But still a lousy one speed transmission with the further complication of the attempt at dynamic braking (did the overrunning clutches effectively allow the engine to decouple and coast when the car was going downhill with the driver's foot off the gas ?
I had a 58 Belaire with one. Turned it to a Powerglide.
Yes --- decoupling was a problem - especially in California where idling in neutral, downhill was illegal and they let GM know it was not unnoticed and they didn't like it one bit! California decided to not let GM bring the TG into the state anymore until the transmission stayed in some sort of gear on coast.
I read that rule many years ago when I took my Brake-Lamp-Smog license tests.
My brother had 58 impala 348 tri power beautiful car scared off soon traded it off
Another example of British narration of a completely American subject.
The British verbosity and repetition of statements using different words never ceases to amaze. How many words do you need to describe something over and over again. Their reiteration of ideas with wordy, low content yammer always make me marvel. I mean, how many times do you have to say the same thing in different ways to fill ten minutes of video?
I believe this is partially GENERATED content possibly an AI generated voice. Note how the voice says Turboglide the exact same way each time. Also who says two hundred eighty three instead of 283 when describing an engine size?
British narration adds value- everybody knows this.
It's a Brit-Box AI - even though it has a turned up nose.
They are head of their Time with a gear with a variable torque converter to multiple torque the same As modern day car with a throw away gear box not worth it to rebuild
Turboglide or as we called it…….Turboslide.
10 years with no problems even with the w head 348 truck engine!!! Just too advanced!!!
The 348 was used in many passenger cars too.
@@SLJ2137694 .... and many people thought the 348 was a Baby 409. While it kinda-almost looked the same, they weren't.
@@SurferJoe46 The 409 used a new block casting. 348s in 62 trucks used the 409 casting.
@@jamesbosworth4191 You may very well be correct --- I don't have a LOT of working experiences with them. The 409 was favored although everyone "knew" it was a truck block --- but the 348 was in our 1959 short bed C10 shop truck with a PG and it was impressive, but wouldn't rev worth beans.
@@SurferJoe46 The Hydraulic ones - both sizes - wouldn't, but the solid lifter versions would, but the 63 - 65 version with dual quads was fragile. The 409 horsepower of the 62 engine seems to have been the upper limit. Any more than that had you right on the edge of destruction.
Slip and slide with power glide.😊.
The old slip glide.
3:10 Gets to the point.
Good episode!
The Turboglide was Chevy's attempt to copy the smooth Dynaflow... which, unfortunately wasn't a worthy objective... the Dynaflow grossly wasted power and was more complex. The objective should have been a multi-gear tranny. Wait a minute ! GM already had the hydramatic. Why didn't they simply use that (or an improved version) ? That would have saved my bro from substituting an old-fashioned but trusty Powerglide into his '57 BelAir Sport Sedan, as was commonly done when the TGlides inevitably died
Most sources day the Buick people didn't like the Hydramatic's noticeable shifting. They called it the Hydrajeck
During WW II Buick produced the M-18 Hellacat tank destroyer, for which they developed a hydraulic drive. That was the model for the Dynaflow.
You must remember Oldsmobile was becoming a performance brand (Rocket Eight ertc.) while Buick went for a more sedate crowd. Oldsmobile Div. Call Buick's tranny the Dynaslush and it did live down the that name. Engine s for Dynaflow cars had increased compression to make up for the power lost. My mom had a 55 Buick Century with the automatic and you never felt a think when my Dad floored it. You just heard the engine roar. However he also said the car had no passing power due to the lack of a genuine second gear. Both the Buicks and Powerglide Chevys had a habit of stalling when you made a slow turn and accelerated. I guess the first gear was too tall.
The hydramatic was very expensive to manufacture, and the newer version (the slim jim) proved to be troublesome. The Dynaflow was not as efficient as the earlier Hydramatic, but was cheaper to build and was much more reliable than the slim jim. The Turboglide and the Buick triple turbine transmissions were not the answer, but the Turbo-hydramatic was a great replacement for these outdated automatics.
@@craigcardwell4143 It would have actually been less costly for GM to offer the hydramatic, no development/training/replacement costs and no loss if customer goodwill
The problem with the Hydro was that it was the same gear ratios as a granny-box manual transmission in medium-duty trucks of the day. Each gear was a multiple of the preceding gear and LOW was really GRANNY like the truck manual 4-speed. It was wasteful of fuel because you got high RPM - then a shift - and the engine was right back to idle speed for the next gear, chugging to accelerate. I know --- I raced with a B&M Hydro for years and if you had huge cubic inches it didn't matter much ---- but a 9-grand screaming 301 had some struggles with the wide gear ratios.
1st gear was good for about 10 feet off the starting line/red light ---- and then 2nd was a huge hit with a lot of tire spin ... if the race wasn't won by then, you were toast to a manual 4-speed on the street.
Also known as the Troubleglide.
That looks like Havana.
Power glide 2 speed xmition
Try to get a car fixed now
Oh come on. It was nothing more than a Buick Dynaflow introduced in the 1940s. Do your homework.
Is it me or is this a very redundant dialog?
Brit-Box AI can't help repeating itself.
To day would be a good to have in a frout wheel drive car and it wouldn't take Up much space would be great As to be on the lift for a long time
I remember they were junk , very undependable , and chevys power glide wasn’t much better
less fluff and more details AI ???
Holden had the tri Matic transmission series 1 was terrible series 2 a bit better series 3 was a good and when it worked good and changed gear as good as a BMW
The GM tri-matic was produced in France, it was purchased by BMW for several years, and installed in cars built for export markets, including the US. Maybe Australia too?
Ai voices suck. Use your own.
Have you ever driven a car with a two speed shush box, they suck on MPG.
High gear is still direct drive!
@@SLJ2137694 When you consider that you could take it up to 65 in first, it was kind of a dog off the line.
First car was 1970 nova. 307 power glide.. 30 mpg highway when tuned correctly.
@@Ken-l2e 30 mpg? Really? Didn't everyone else on the highway get angry with you driving 40 mph?!
A s___ trans, even worse than the powerglide
I think all automatics that are not dual clutch use torque converters and that DOES NOT make a it a CVT. Do some more research before publish ing this garbage.
The turboglide is a continuously variable transmission by definition. Do some research before posting that garbage. 👍
This is just incorrect AI garbage. "Designed to turn heads" Lol
It was a cheap transmission made for GMs cheaper cars.
Is this an AI slop? This could've been like 3 minute video given the redundancy in statements 🫣🫣