Detroit Gear transmission

Kdancy
Kdancy Senior Contributor
edited November -1 in HUDSON
Would some one tell me the reason that Hudson went from the Hydromatic to the Detroit Gear automatic in 54 ?

Comments

  • SuperDave
    SuperDave Senior Contributor
    Kdancy wrote:
    Would some one tell me the reason that Hudson went from the Hydromatic to the Detroit Gear automatic in 54 ?



    There was a major fire in the Hydra-Matic plant in 1954 causing a shortage of transmissions. Hudson used Borg Warner automatic for the interim.
  • Kdancy
    Kdancy Senior Contributor
    Dave, was this for the whole 54 model year?
  • SuperDave
    SuperDave Senior Contributor
    Kdancy wrote:
    Dave, was this for the whole 54 model year?



    No not for the whole year.. What months?? I don't have a clue.. perhaps someone will know more details. I never owned one of the BW 54's but I did find a transmission a few years ago and gave it to Henney Jacobs to use for parts if the situation should arise. I have heard that they didn't stand up to the 308 very well. If I had a BW 54 and it worked well.. i think i would treat it gently.:D
  • Kdancy
    Kdancy Senior Contributor
    OK, now I am more confused. Did Borg Warner make the Detroit Gear Transmissions? I know Studebaker used the Detroit Gear early on before going to the cheaper Borg Warner automatic.

    ?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Borg Warner and Studebaker made the Detroit Gear transmission as a joint effort. This was not to my knowledge the BW auto used in the Hudson for part of 54. The Detroit Gear Tranny had a description of operation:



    Automatic Drive was a joint effort of Studebaker and Borg-Warner (Detroit

    Gear Division). The transmission allows the driver to switch from torque

    converter-gear drive to direct drive and back again at any speed between 18

    mph and 58 mph. Above 58, the torque converter is always locked out, below

    18 it is always locked in.
  • Kdancy
    Kdancy Senior Contributor
    51hornetA wrote:
    Borg Warner and Studebaker made the Detroit Gear transmission as a joint effort. This was not to my knowledge the BW auto used in the Hudson for part of 54. The Detroit Gear Tranny had a description of operation:



    Automatic Drive was a joint effort of Studebaker and Borg-Warner (Detroit

    Gear Division). The transmission allows the driver to switch from torque

    converter-gear drive to direct drive and back again at any speed between 18

    mph and 58 mph. Above 58, the torque converter is always locked out, below

    18 it is always locked in.



    The 54 Hudson Automatic Transmission manual I have is all about the DG automatic transmission, just like the one in a 55 Studebaker I am working on.

    img155.jpg
  • hudsontech
    hudsontech Senior Contributor
    The fire that destroyed GM's Hydramatic plant in Livonia, Michigan happened on August 12, 1953. As a result, Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs during the downtime were assembled with Buick's Dynaflow transmission, while Pontiacs used Chevrolet's Powerglide, both two-speed torque-converter units. Non-GM makes that bought Hydramatics from the corporation, including Ford Motor Co.'s Lincoln division and independent automakers Hudson, Kaiser and Nash, ended up looking for other sources of automatic transmissions as well, with Lincoln using the corporate Ford-O-Matic transmission, while the other automakers purchased automatics from Borg-Warner during the downtime.



    Hudson, as did the others used up what-ever they had, then went to Borg Warner. It is true, the BW tranny's were nowhere near as robust as the Hydro's. You really had to work at it to destroy a hydramatic.



    Production of Hydramatics started again bout nine weeks after the Livonia fire, at Willow Run, Michigan. By the time the 1954 models debuted in late 1953, Hydramatic production had returned to normal levels and all '54 model Cadillacs, Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs with automatic transmissions were once again equipped with Hydramatics. They took care of their own first.



    Hudsonly,

    Alex Burr

    Memphis, TN
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    I have that manual as well and its the first time I have looked at it. You are right it is a Detroit Gears BW tranny. I had read somewhere that Studebaker would not resell to Ford I guess they did not mind Hudson. I had one of these trannies I gave it away as I always use the Hydramatic. Should have taken a closer look that direct drive stuff looked interesting.
  • Kdancy
    Kdancy Senior Contributor
    I've found some more into pertaining to the DG transmission --

    http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/dg250.txt
    Any early shop manual should have complete information. This is a very

    sophisticated transmission still unmatched in some ways by modern units.



    Also interesting is the discussion on not revving it up in neutral.
    y DG250M does the same thing but you have to rev it up pretty high. What

    causes that?

    My tranny works great, with the exception of reverse.

    That is the convertor going into lock up mode. This is a good way to

    destroy

    something. You should not rev these cars (AT's) to high rpm in neutral or

    park. I learned the hard way about 40 years ago. Gary L.

    ----

    I don't know about any other modern cars, but BMW has a very clear warning

    not to rev the motor of an automatic trans car with it in neutral or park.

    Substantial damage to the trans will result.

    If I'm not mistaken, the DG transmission was the one that Ted Harbit of Studebaker fame, ran in the chickenhawk for years at the drag strip. He actually lost some et when he finally switched over to a gm400 tranny. Running a Studebaker V8--

    ***Mistaken! Here is a note from Ted---

    No, I started with a T-86 overdrive then, T-86 w/o overdrive, then went to a Powershift, then a GM 350 and it didn't last two weeks, then to three GM 400's before they got one to last.

    I did have a '51 convertible one time that had the DG transmission and it worked fine.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    When you break it down looking at the manual it looks like a pretty complicated tranny. I can see why they had failures. Lockup torque converter and direct drive were pretty much ahead of their time.
  • Kdancy
    Kdancy Senior Contributor
    51hornetA wrote:
    When you break it down looking at the manual it looks like a pretty complicated tranny. I can see why they had failures. Lockup torque converter and direct drive were pretty much ahead of their time.



    It is more sophisticated then the other brands of the day.

    It is my understanding that the production cost was the reason Studebaker went to the cheaper to produce BW trans, not because of "failures". This same DG trans was used by other makes, Jaguar comes to mind, for many years after Stude stopped using it.

    Ford did try to work out a deal with Studebaker to produce and use the DG trans but Studebaker would have none of it. How short sited !
This discussion has been closed.

Categories

In this Discussion