Quote:
Originally Posted by benman94
"Slushbox" isn't a slur; the transmission is fluid coupled. It's a "slushbox" by design.
I've driven two: a '49 and a '52. The straight engine is nice, and I'll say that the Dynaflow gives very smooth acceleratio. That's where my praise ends.
Buick always had garbage styling, the Roadmaster I drove handled poorly, and a Dynaflow equipped vehicle accelerates too slowly and wastes gas doing it.
Oldsmobile's Hydramatic transmission was vastly superior. The engineers at the Pontiac, GMC, and Cadillac divisions apparently agreed.
Even Chevrolet's Powerglide was more efficient than Buick's Dynaflow.
All that said, Packard's Ultramatic was a better transmission than Hydramatic, Dynaflow, or Powerglide, with the exception of rather serious reliability issues.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
|
Fair enough answer . The reason I asked is that it has been my experience that folks who denigrated such cars/transmissions were actually looking for something else , something that the car wasn't built to be and never could be . The Buick was basically a Cadillac with less trim and options and as such was specifically built to be "big & floaty" and not any kinds of "performance car" . Folks driving a Buick (or Cadillac) looking for Corvette performance were gonna be very sorely disappointed indeed , whereas people who drove them looking for that smooth ride with no abrupt starts , stops , or turns were getting exactly what the car was built to deliver , a ride akin to a driving BarcaLounger . It was the same with my 61 and 64 Cadillacs , drive them enjoying that big floaty ride and it was like floating on air , drive them expecting cornering like my MG at one's own peril , a couple of tons of car just ain't gonna change direction like a fighter jet
