Re: GM Hydramatic in a 1947 Super Clipper?

Posted by su8overdrive On 2013/7/2 15:18:54

Whoa, steady. Was merely seconding JW's observation that the cars are fine as built, and my first line opened "No offense ." Most of us use off-the-cuff nom de plumes here, so "Johnny Depp" was a lighthearted if lame joke.

Reread my comments. They're a cordial sharing of information. And i'm serious. If you want an old luxe car with nearly the same torque and the same IFS that already has HydraMatic, why not consider a 1941-48 Cadillac?

Many of us are purists, essentially, mild tweaks, upgrades notwithstanding. But when you start swapping engines/transmissions, you lose the car's soul, hence the word "to pervert" which is leagues from calling someone, um, uh, a pervert.

Easy. Again, no offense meant. Beg pardon. Lo siento. Perhaps if you drove a well-sorted, essentially stock '47 senior you'd understand what i and the above posters are trying to say.

Dr. Cole's right. HydraMatic was and is a good automatic,
refined with wartime Federal tax dollars, produced by the same lovely corporation that sued the US government for Allied bombing damage to their German Opel plants.
Compare with East Grand's relatively classy behavior.

Tho' Consumers Reports in the day gave Packard's Ultramatic its Best Buy rating, HydraMatic would take more of a beating despite an Ultramatic lasting forever behind a straight eight if you drove like an adult, routinely changed fluid and filter. A friend racked up a whopping 137,000 miles on an Ultramatic behind his '53's 327 inline 8 with NOTHING but the preceding service and having the bands adjusted. Yes, really. Verdad. It is so.

When i was young and under the apple bough, i owned a 48,414-mile little old lady's '51 Packard with Ultramatic, and on the highway, wished it had another gear. Several friends owned/own '41 Cadillac dropheads, which i've driven. One of them has a '52 Dual-Range HydraMatic, which is not nearly as fine a driving experience as shifting yourself---and the Cad-LaSalle gearbox isn't as nice as the Packard R-9 transmission, which has nine bearings to the Cad's manual transmission's five, huskier, finer throughout. Toss in overdrive and you've really got it all.

But, as also mentioned, i'm a sports car guy who long ago got happily sidetracked by 1940-47 Packard overdrive 8s and Su8s on the shorter, standard wheelbases, so shifting yourself is part of the experience for some of us.


Automatic transmission is a convenience feature doing nothing for performance. It's a uniquely American construct, since even Rolls-Royce/Bentley didn't bother offering a slushbox (HydraMatic at that) until 1952.

Ol' su8overdrive's lotta things, but a "snob, effete" or otherwise, ain't among them, being downright catholic in my automotive taste.

Just saying.