Pontiac Hydramatic in a Hudson?

DavidC

I pulled a Hydramatic out of a 53 Hornet Sedan donor car. The car has 80k on the odometer. The green tag on the Hydramatic does not mention Hudson as does my other Hydramatic, and is marked P54, which suggests to me it was manufactured in 1954 for another GM co, maybe Pontiac? But the tranny was painted a gold that matched the stock numbers-matching block. So, is it possible, with all the problems in 53 with hydramatic production, that this was the original tranny, or did this Hudson owner manage to blow his tranny along the way and replace it with a 54 model, but took the time to paint it gold? I included the VIN tag in case anyone would like to estimate the manufacturing month. Any sleuths out there?

Kdancy

quite possibly it was changed out over the years. My 49 coupe came from the factory with a standard and the prier owner installed a hydromatic. It started slipping pretty badly and my dad and I pulled one out of a cadillac parts car we had and installed that into the 49, I ran it for a couple of years then installed a T86 with od from a Nash into the 49 coupe and installed a top loader shifter from a checker cab, put a switch on the shifter to control od and ran that way until I sold the car. I don't remember all the specifics -- just used what we had on hand.

[Deleted User]

Should'nt a 54 trany be red ?
Roger

Browniepetersen

Big problems with Hudson trannies in late 53. If my memory is correct there was a fire at the HydraMatic factory (7 days after the production of the 54's started) and all deliveries stopped. Hudson scrambled and was buying trannies where they could get them. Borg Warner got most of the business with a contract that called for them to be used in all cars except the Jet, but others started showing up in some of the 54 Hudson's. Ike Smith preferred the Pontiac trannies and would do some modifying to them before placing them in his racing cars. My 54 has a Pontiac Ike Smith special in it.... If the plate you have is correct, this was one of the last of the HydraMatic units that made it out before the fire.

hudsontech

I don't have Pontiac numbers, but your serial number, 260100, indicates the car was made in June 1953 (259301-265490) - one of 6,190 to come off the line.

Hudson transmission numbers for 1950-1953 were: H-50, H-51, J-51, J-52, Z-52, H-53, and Z-53. However, I don't know which ones go with which models.

The hydramatic plant fire was in August 1953. Read Tom Bonsall's great article on the fire here - http://www.autotran.us/TheGreatHydraMaticFire.html It's amazing that it only took GM a mere 9 weeks to get a new factory going and the first transmissions going to Hudson, Nash, and Kaiser.

Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN

[Deleted User]

I allway's thought it odd that GM shipped out the first available units from the new factory to the independents .Would it be safe to assume they were wanting any quality control issues to show up in those rather than their own cars ?
Roger 8->

Lee ODell

It seems to me GMs decision to sell Hydromatics first to Hudson, Nash and Kaiser after the fire was a smart move. GM was already installiing their powerglide and dynaflow transmissions in their cars to keep their car sales alive. Hudson, Nash and Kaiser were not a threat to giant GM and here was a ready made market needing transmissions. Selling to independents allowed GM to quickly recouped the cost of rebuilding hydromatic manufacturing. Also, making more profits selling the hydros to the independents.
Even today not all GM cars are made from 100% in house manufacturing nor 100% U.S.A. made parts either.
So for the purists, Hudsons were not always 100% Hudson either.
Lee O'Dell

[Deleted User]

It is amassing to me whenever pulling a part from one 54 Hudson to use on my running one that 50% of the time the part is different ????? 54 was a difficult year for Hudson.

[Deleted User]

One of the problems in installing a non Hudson hydramatic replacement into a Hudson is to watch for the number of driven clutch plates. The Hornet had more than a Nash or a Kaiser and therefore was a stronger tranny. A weaker tranny will work in a Hudson but it's performance is not as good. A Hudson J 52- 53 and Kaiser have 9 plates ea whereas the H52 - 3 and Pontiac have 11 each. Therefore a Kaiser hydramatic in a 52 Hornet would not be as strong as a Pontiac.

PAULARGETYPE

LINK TO HYDROMATIC PLANT FIRE INFO

http://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/Biggest_Industrial_Fire_in_History

SuperDave

Back in the seventies my 54 hornet Special would not shift into reverse some times and if it did, it took a few tries to get it back into drive. ( I now know that the only problem was in the linkage on the selector valve) I drove it to a local transmission shop that said they knew all about those Hydro's. I ended up towing it home with a rope because after they overhauled it. It would not move at all! The next shop I towed it to told me I had a GM mechanic work on it, because he didn't put all the clutch parts back in! So.. Lance is right! Hudson did spec a stronger tranny.

hudsontech

Makes sense Hudson would want a stronger hydro - especially when using with a 308. That mother is all about torque, torque, torque. Hudson was savvy enough to know, deep down, that there were more than a few stop-light drag races gonna be done with their cars.
My first Hudson was a 1953 Hornet sedan - I regularly dusted off Ferds, Chevy's and eve Pony's. At least for a few blocks. Other drivers, when we pulled over, wanted to see the V-8 under the hood. More than a few cried when they saw that big ole 308 under the hood.

Hudsonly,
Alex Burr
Memphis, TN

DavidC

Thank you all for the stories as well as the history. I conclude that this 53 hornet got a 54 Pontiac hydro later in life, and the owner was willing to paint it gold.

DavidC

One of the differences I noticed between the Pontiac and Hudson hydramatics is the Hudson has a threaded hole in the very top of the case that would appear to make a good vent. The Pontiac has no such hole. Is this important to vent when I reinstall? I see no mention of it in my Hudson automatic tranny service manual.
Dave

GrimGreaser

I believe that would be to thread in a eyebolt to hook to the transmission to move it.

DavidC

Thanks GrimGreaser, I guess I'll just cap it