Hiya - dead right, all those extended bellhousings were used up to '53 until
the advent of the powerflyte. Interestingly enough, they appear to
correspond with the small valve 331's too.
The early Chrysler Industrials (Yep they even had "INDUSTRIAL" on the tappet
covers) had this extended bellhousing as well - although they were hooked up
to Skilifts and combine harvesters and suchlike
Biggest let down with the old fluid drive is that they are very slow
shifting - the engine revs have to die down to provide the synchro between
gears and in a hemi with a heavy crank etc this can be annoyingly slow
As far as I can make out the fluid drive for most of the flathead era had
just a fluid coupling, whilst those for the hemis had an actual torque
converter which should make quite a difference...
As far as perfomance goes, I read something pretty cool, and that was a
letter (In a '51 Car & Driver) to the editor by a guy who had a Jaguar
XK120, and he was asking why his friend who had a '51 Saratoga with a 331"
hemi thrashed him to 60 mph
>From: Anthony Foster <monkeypuzzle1@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: IML: 331 Hemis With Extended Bell housing
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:26:43 -0800
>
>Hello Gang;
> It is my understanding that the extended bell housings were used from the
>1951 model year until late in the1953 production year. It seems to me that
>this would correspond with the demise of the M6 semi-automatic and the
>introduction of the Powerflyte transmissions. Every source that I have run
>across would indicate that this is the case.
> It would seem to me that if it were otherwise then you would run across
>Powerflytes without a bell housing. The M6 transmissions were also used on
>flathead six's which did not have that extention on the back of the block
>so
>obviously they were built with a bell housing as well as without, but I
>think that it was detachable. I do know that the late production 1953
>Imperials did come with the Powerflyte so a change in engine blocks would
>only make sense around the same time.
> If I had a car with the Fluid Torque Drive or M6 transmission I would
>probably keep it. From what I understand from people that have owned them,
>they were a very reliable device. Another reason that I would keep one is
>that the M6 is fairly unique in that it is an automatic with a clutch pedal
>and, as such, has many of the advantages of a standard as well.
>Best Regards
>Arran Foster
>1954 Imperial Newport
>Needing A Left Side Taillight Bezel and other trim parts.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mopar48291@xxxxxxx>
>To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:10 PM
>Subject: IML: 53 Fluid-Torque switch to Powerflite
>
>
> > I believe that '53 has a one year only bell housing for
> > the Powerflite that allows it to be mated to the same
> > engine as the Fluid-Torque trans. '54 has the newer
> > style bell housing that is PF only. I've driven '53s
> > with both trans, and I think the Fluid-Torque is quicker
> > than the Powerflite, even left in high range.
> >
> > My '54 is slow off the line, but her rear end is a 2.93
> > instead of the original 3.54, so she's built for
> > cruising, not street racing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Roger
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network