Packard Forum Index » V-8 (1955-56)

Yes Randy. I'm still running what i believe to be the original factory T'Ultra that has never been rebilt. It works just fine. AND it has well over 50K miles on it.

But there is the gas mileage issue for me that an overdrive trans would greatly improve. I drive at least 2k miles per year mostly interstate hiway.

I do NOT recommend replaceing any GOOD T'ultra as long as it is running just fine. But the person who started this thread apparently does not have a good T'Ultra and needs to take some kind of action?????

When my T'Ultra goes bad i'm not real sure what i will do. Prefer an overdrive trans but cost will be the deciding factor.


Many of the younger set like a lot of low speed torque and fast take offs from traffic lites. That is hard on any transmission. But the more modern transmissions will take hot rodding alot better than anyof the 50's or 60's automatic transmisssions.

If it wasn't for the overdrive of the modern transmissions i doubt that i would be encouraged to use them and would just continue with the T'Ultra and research rebuild parts for it.

I do very little low speed hot rodding, nearly none. So little in fact that i rarely use "D". Always use "H". Most all of my driveing is interstate hiway at 70-80 mph. So it's the overdrive and LONGEVITY that the modern OD transmissions offer..

BOTTOM LINE:
Lets do a PRICE COMPARISON of Rebuilt T'Ultra v. GM 700R4 conversion or any other conversion anyone would like to pick.

The cheapest and easiest way wins!

i rarely use "D". Always use "H".

Sage advice indeed!

Quote:
<p>
Well, I always use "D" and rarely use "H" and have had zero T-U problems in 10 years. So, based on two anecdotal data points, I'd say the advantage of one range selected over the other is unproven.
</p>
<p>
Also, when starting in "L" and then the converter locks up, one can fool a naive passenger that the T-U has 3 forward gears, not two, by then shifting to "D".
<p>
</p>
Craig
</p>

To All:

The Ultra-Torque conversion discussed at the the AACA Forum involved a fella who had habit of ignoring good advice and asking the same question repeatedly until he got the answer he wanted to hear. When it came to his questions about swapping trannies (and wanting an eazy-breezy off-the-shelf conversion), the Ultra-Torque came up. I finally relented and gave him the addy for the Ultra-Torque supplier - hoping that would be the end of it. Turns out, his buddies chipped in and bought him a 727 core for Xmas. He allegedly had it rebuilt and installed, with the UltraTorque kit, by a tranny shop, but had a lot of trouble with it as delivered. Ultimately, he blew a seal, burned up the tranny, and then sold the car. It turned up on eBay a couple of times, in the hands of a seller in TX, IIRC.

Now, if someone had a Packard straight eight with an Ultramatic prior to Gear Start (and wants an automatic upshift from low to high), I could see some benefit of going to all the trouble of rebuilding and installing a 727 - provided they meticulously quality-check the UltraTorque components. Yet, when it comes to the Gear Start or Twin Ultra, I'd rather go to all the trouble to properly rebuild one of those than swap it out for some other technology. Swapping to the factory-available three-speed manual gearbox with overdrive is always an option - provided you can come up with all the pieces.

However, if someone had a compelling need for overdrive, I'd be thinking about a conversion that utilized a GM 700R4 or 4L60 (but not the electronically-controlled 4L60E). I don't have the part number handy, but there is a GM relay that can be wired in (in place of the normal computer controls) to manage the torque converter clutch. Unfortunately, it sounds like there isn't a readily available adaptation for the GM unit to a Packard engine.

Chrysler was pretty late out of the gate with an overdrive automatic, and their first was in a transaxle only. Dubbed the "Ultradrive", the Packard gods must not have been happy about their use of "Ultra" as those units had a lot of problems. Meanwhile, RWD Dodge trucks continued to use evolving versions of Torqueflite. Their first example with O-D was the A518, but I'd heard those didn't hold up very well, either. The A518 was soon replaced by a heavier-duty version - the A618. A 47RH is a hydraulically-controlled version of of the A618. I wonder if that could be used with the UltraTorque.

That's just my $0.02 on the subject - presented as food for thought. I'm no expert transmisson rebuilder or engineer - just a seasoned GM parts man and Packard V8 owner.

"Also, when starting in "L" and then the converter locks up...."

OH!. I was unaware that converter lock up could occur in "L". I just never tried it or thot to try it. Where does it lock up about 3K rpm???

the coverter will lock in low, though im not sure of the rpm. There are some back roads around here with very steep hills, and its fun to use L with the converter locked to engine brake down.

The chrysler A518 isnt alot different than a 727 with overdrive. there a fine transmission behind a stock engine, but a modified Cummins 6BT can really put a hurting on it fast. A stock 6bt has roughly AT THE FLYWHEEL 190-200 HP and 400ft lbs torque, which is nearly the same as our 374 Packard V8. That being said, both the 727 and 518 both came from the factory with a torque converter far more suited to gas engine use than the diesel, so i think an A518 would live happily behind a stock 374. If you wanted to go even a bit further, a good converter, shift kit, and cooler would be a powerhouse combination. There are dodge/ Cummins sites out there that will have good instructions on how to rig up a potentiometer to controll overdrive for the 518.

I wouldnt trust a 47rh unless it had been set up right.

I wouldn't go with the UltraTorque conversion simply because of all the horror stories I've read about vibration. Apparently, the source of the vibration is the Packard flywheel itself, and it needs to be blanchard ground to solve the problem. A lot of work to replace a fine transmission, if you ask me.

That being said, to illustrate the robustness of the Ultramatic, I had a '55 cast iron Ultra in my '56 Patrician, drove it over 6000 miles, hard, on a daily basis, and never did anything to it other than changing the fluid a couple of times, eventually switching over to B&M TrickShift fluid. All this in a transmission that had sat unused for over 40 years in a field. The only part I replaced on it was the converter to pump seal, and I did that when I had it out the first time. I have absolutely NO qualms about using an Ultramatic, but I do recommend that if you have them out, you replace the direct drive clutch if nothing else. Despite all the detractors, the Ultramatic is a damn fine transmission, provided you drive the car like it was intended, and not try to drag race it.

Same story as Eric's except that my '55 Pat had a '56 aluminium cased T/U when I got it. Never any trouble in hard, daily use since 2005 except for initial tendency of direct-drive clutch to slip that cleared up after a couple (or was it three) fluid changes and switching to B&M Trick Shift transmission fluid. Just as an example of the kind of daily use it gets, I've been driving it back and forth from Orlando to Palm Coast, Ormond Beach, Daytona and Port Orange on I-4 and I-95 for the past two weeks at average speeds of between 70 and 80 mph.

Like Packard V8, I'm not in any hurry to depart traffic signals or standing stops. The Ultramatic (nor almost any other automatic transmission of its day) was not designed for such and the Ultramatic (including its T/U incarnation)- in particular - will not long tolerate it.

Fuel mileage would improve greatly with an OD set-up of some kind, of course, but the T/U is a smooth, serviceable and dependable transmission (for its day) if respected for what it was designed for.

I know whereof I speak, being personally responsible for the early (and sometimes catastrophic) failure of at least one example of almost all known domestic '50s era automatic transmissions.

I think that Loyd's car and my car swapped transmissions at some point in the past....

On the subject of O/D, I have been tossing up the idea for several years of adding an o/d to the back of the Ultramatic. I've only been hindered back the inability to find an R-11 o/d that's short enough to fit in the same space as the stock Ultramatic tailshaft. I have a R-10 o/d from a Hudson trans, but I'd rather have the stronger R-11 for the torque handling capacity since the V8's seem to love lots of torque!