(first posted 3/30/2012. Revised 6/11/2017) Or some of both? All depends…among other things, whether we’re talking 1950 or 1973. Powerglide was the first automatic transmission available on a low-priced car. As well as the last of its kind almost a quarter century later. Yes, the Powerglide’s longevity was legendary, both in terms of its three decades of utilization, as well as its durability. And before we complain about its two-speed-ness, let’s keep this single thought in mind: it started out as a one-speed.
Well, strictly speaking, it had two speeds, but it didn’t shift automatically between them. The Powerglide was of the “slush-box” school of thought regarding automatics, unlike the four-speed Hydramatic used by Olds and Cadillac, which didn’t have a torque converter at all, but a fluid coupling, hence the need for four gears.The Hydramatic was efficient, but it was not very smooth. And although it was a brilliant breakthrough, GM’s engineering staff was also interested in exploring the alternative approach to automatics: torque converter.
A torque converter can be set up for a very wide range of effective “gear range”, and the appeal of the torque converter was that it didn’t require any “gears” at all; the necessary torque multiplication could all happen in the torque converter (“TC”). One needs to see these TC transmissions in a different light: not as an automatically-shifted gearbox, like the Hydramatic, but as a seamless way to transmit the engine’s power to the wheels. TC drive was being used extensively in military vehicles, buses, locomotives, and other heavy equipment due to the great attraction of eliminating the cumbersome mechanical drive and clutch. It made for a very smooth power delivery.
That was the appeal to GM as an alternative to the jerky Hydramatic. Buick bought into the concept first, with its Dynaflow, and Chevy soon followed. The Powerglide was very similar to the Dynaflow in design and execution. of course that meant leisurely take-offs, which was helped a bit by the fact that early Powerglide Chevys always slightly had more powerful engines teamed up with them. But in 1950, traffic was invariably leisurely, and the PG’s smooth delivery was a very acceptable trade-off. It’s hard to overstate what a relief it was for many drivers to be able to give up the clutch and manual shift.
It was a complete drive-train package, with an up-rated 105 hp six that sported hydraulic valve lifters, and a lower (numeric) ratio axle to help compensate for the mileage loss. According to an extensive survey of owners, PG had an average 1.5 mpg fuel economy loss.
Of course, the original PG could be shifted into Low manually, for grades, as well as snappier take-offs, up to a maximum of 40 mph. That manual shift could be harsh, and hard on the transmission, so beginning in 1953, PG got automatic shifting between first and top gear. Progress. Or faster progress.
The first generation Powerglides had cast iron cases, built into 1963. Starting in 1962, the aluminum case PG superseded it, in part because a lighter version for the Chevy II was a necessity. There was also a HD version of the aluminum box PG, which has become immortal as a simple, efficient and rugged two-speed drag-racing box.
The PG would shift into top gear depending of course on rear axle ratios and the engine’s rev range. The highest tested shift point was 76mph, on a ’63 409 (340 hp) Impala coupe, with a standard 3.31 axle ratio.But according to my calculations, a 1967 Corvette 427 with PG would not shift into high until about 90mph, or more.
A typical mid-late sixties 283 equipped big Chevy would shift at between 50-55 mph. Therein lay the Powerglide’s shortcoming. Cars were getting heavier, speeds higher, and expectations were being raised, especially by Chrysler’s excellent three-speed Torqueflite and the improved Ford C6 and C4 three-speeds.
Below is a brief excerpt from a 1965 Popular Science test of 1965 full size cars, including a 352 equipped Galaxie, 318 Fury, and 283 Impala. Admirably, the Chevy was the lightest car of the three, but that wasn’t enough to overcome its handicap of no intermediate gear, and delivered the longest acceleration runs and the worst fuel mileage. Here’s how PS summed up the issue:
The result was a 12.8 second run to sixty and a 14.9 mpg mileage. That the 352 Ford eked out a better mileage number (15.8) is testament to the reality that when even a more efficient engine has to run harder, in less efficient engine speed ranges, it will use more fuel. The Chevy’s V8/Powerglide power train was top dog in 1955, but ten years later, it was showing the strain of time and changing expectations.
Sure, it was immensely reliable, which is undoubtedly why Chevy stuck with it after their disastrous 1958 Turbo-Glide crash. But by 1970 or so, when cars were burdened by ever more weight and accessories, it was undeniably past its sell-by-date. The modern Turbo-Hydramatic started becoming available, initially only on the new big-block motors, starting in 1965.
1971 was the last year for the Powerglide in the large Chevies; the Vega chugged along for another two more years. Perhaps the ad should say “our apologies to people who expect only three-speed automatics in their Impalas”. I drove a 1971 Chevy taxi, with the 250 six and the PG; it probably had half a million miles on it, so its durability was unquestioned. But man, was that ever a slow pig….
Legend and slug, all in one. So what does the jury say?
Related reading:
1967 Corvette 427 Tri-Power PG: The Ultimate (and Fastest) PG Equipped Car Ever
Two Speed Automatics vs. Three Speed Manuals: When 2=3, More or Less
I had a 1969 Nova with 307 2 bbl engine, and a Powerglide. It was the worst transmission I ever owned. There was no punch off the line. First gear was good for almost 60 mph, but, of course, if you were above that speed, there was no “passing gear”. The transmission slipped like crazy on the 1-2 shift, too. The 2-1 downshift was jerky, as might be expected, given the large RPM rise. They had a weird whine to them. I worked in a repair shop in the early 70’s, and Powerglides were no better in the customer’s cars. Even this so called durability is a stretch. The bands had to be adjusted and replaced. I think people remember only the good over time. The only good thing I can say, is GM made a lot of money putting such a cheap transmission in their cars, and people bought them.
A friend of mine who is driving a special made offroad car in a motorsport called “Formula Offroad” is using PG and is doing about 100 mile (yes 160 km) in first gear. He is using 355 Chevy small block.
O yes he is mostly just using the first gear all the time, with stall speed between 4000-5000 rpm.
The Power Glide is a nice piece and much shorter then any other GM auto tranny I do know of. It was used in some 1/4 mile cars many years ago and did deliver some fun, but today we have some more chooses then before.
A bang for the buck ….. in my way of opinion.
Do you have to pull the engine to work on a 1963 Chevy corvette power glide transmission?
I could never figure why a Corvette would be saddled with a PG. Every Corvette I have ever driven has had a 4sp, I would hate to think what a PG would do to it having driven PG equipped cars, the first being a ’50 Chevrolet. Never owned one, just ridden in and have driven many PG cars over the years. And in all the discussion about auto transmissions nobody has mentioned the 3 spd BW O-Matics. Ford and also it’s UK and Australia divisions, Mercury, Studebaker, AMC, Jeep, BMC, Citroën, Datsun, MG, Jaguar, Rover, Saab, Triumph & Volvo all used this transmission in it’s various versions. I don’t think any other automatic transmission has been used in so many different brands of cars. The Rambler version which I drove for over 15 years in various Ramblers was the most versatile. 1st and 2nd gear start, the second gear start was probably the nearest to a PG that you get, it would shift to 3rd under full throttle about 60-65 with the V8, the 6 about 10mph less. I beat the heck out of them and never had one fail, The one transmission I had fail was a TorqueFlite, although it was a 6 cyl one with no cooler.
You can even add the Alvis 3-litre, the Reliant Scimitar V6, the Fiat 130 and the Lagonda Rapide (and probably more) to that list. You can’t fight the Borg.
Another relatively successful 3-speed auto box was the ZF 3HP12, as used by BMW, Peugeot, Alfa Romeo, etc.
No, but you have to drop the exhaust system.
Don’t knock the powerglide. In its time and day it was an excellent tranny. Today’s 6plus speed automatic transmissions drive me crazy with their constant hunting for gears. If I had an old Chevy with a ‘glide I would probably swap it out for Turbo350, I think that a 3 speed auto or maybe a 3 speed auto with AOD to be the best. Back in the day an engine with a wide power band did not need that many gears. The beauty of the powerglide was that it was a reliable fully automatic transmission you could get instead of a three on the tree stick. Yes by the early to late sixties there were better transmissions out there, for example the Chrysler Torqueflight. Today I have 700R4 in my half ton 2wd Suburban with a Goodwrench 350, headers, Weiand 144 supercharger, 750 cents Edelbrock carb and a water/methanol injection system. I love it, definitely a sleeper. Full exhaust keeps it quiet. Not sense CFM
A definite win for the transmission that brought totally shiftless transmissions to the masses who simply could not get the hang of driving even a synchromesh manual transmission. And Chevy was first in the low-priced field.
Yes, you could get a Hydra-Matic in a Pontiac. But the price spread between Chevy and Pontiac, which seems microscopic today, was a giant hurdle for the typical Chevy buyer back then. For them, a straight 6 and a Powerglide was perfectly adequate to get to work, to school, to market, and to church without breaking the bank.
By the way, if you’re restoring a Pontiac built late in the ’53 model year and find that it has a Powerglide, it’s probably supposed to be there. The fire that destroyed the one Hydra-Matic plant in August of that year forced Pontiac to temporarily use Powerglides.
And Cadillac and Oldsmobile to use Dynaflows.?
As to the shift to high, 60 is very conservative; holding the selector in low allowed a lot more. My best bud in HS was given a cool ’57 Bel Air hardtop with a 283 4bbl [220 HP as I recall] and powerglide (by his doting father, who really couldn’t afford it). Since he had no $ in the game, he abused that thing terribly. We used to take it to the drag strip, where he would torque it up against the brakes to leave the line and then hold it in low to 80 mph.
Unfortunately, he managed to blow 3 engines and 5 powerglides in a couple of years’ time (or was it 5 engines & 3 powerglides–can’t recall that far back)
Why did GM use the PG so long?
I was in training at GM tech in 1973 @ Flint MI
We had many Instructors, but one was an engineer with a personality.He said if you don’t understand why GM did something, to think of $.
He said GM kept the PG because they did not want to pay a $1license fee ,
to use the technology of the Torque Flite to Chrysler.
The finally realized,after many costly failures, that they could not make a 3 speed automatic that would last & perform. hus the THM 400, which I believe is the toughest AM ever made
Also, consider the learning curve (aka experience curve). Chevy built the same transmission for so many million times that they must have been superb at building it. Cost per unit must have been rock bottom. Take that cost factor with the fact there were very, very few warranty claims and is is easy to see why they stuck with it.
But you cant deny what it started in the drag racing community. Every high performance transmission manufacture had a 2 speed powerglide that they sold. Most of them manufacture their own version of the glide now and is still very popular today. It may have been outdated when the other 3 speeds started to show up but 50 years later it still dominates the lower classes in drag racing. That’s impressive in my book!
Paul, we were discussing the Packard Ultramatic when we were looking at the Hydramatics in the museum in Ypsilanti.
This is the video I was referring to: a 56 Studebaker Golden Hawk with the Packard 352 and Twin Ultramatic. Around the 3:10 mark, the car makes an acceleration run starting in low. The trans upshifts to high around 2000rpm and the tach drops to 1500. A moment later, the torque converter locks up and the tach drops from 1500 to 1000.
Steve, I thought we were talking about the Chrysler Ultradrive 4 speed transaxle. Remember I kept telling you about our ’92 Dodge Caravan, and how I observed its shift points. We didn’t own a Packard!! (I wish).
Yes, if I’d gotten that you were talking about Packard’s Ultramatic, I would have agreed with you too!
1971, ’72, ’73? Wow. Super-lame, considering Chrysler dropped even optional availability of their 2-speed Powerflite after 1961, since when every automatic vehicle they built came with the superlative 3-speed Torqueflite (which had been available and popular since 1956).
It’s been mentioned in the comments in passing, but the 2-speed Toyoglide was an interesting PG clone, made by Aisin-Warner (a JV between Aisin Seiki and Borg Warner) in the ’60s and ’70s. You could get a Toyoglide on anything from the 700cc twin-cylinder Publica (imagine that!) to the V8-powered Century. Not sure when they stopped production — the switch to the 3-speed Toyoglide, which was introduced in 1970, must have taken a few model years.
The two-speed Toyoglide was available well into the ’70s in Japan, although it assumed the same kind of status Powerglide did at GM in the late ’60s, limited to the smallest engines in the cheaper grades.
Greatest Hit or Deadly Sin? It was a hit (though maybe not greatest), it just over stayed its welcome by about five to seven years.
Not a DS. GM did keep it going for too long, that I agree. You could say the same of the Ford flathead V8. A big seller, yet kept in production well past its best by date.
How about a DS/ Greatest Hits on that subject?
The illustrations with this post brought back a lot of memories. My first car back in 1964 was a ’51 Chevy with a Powerglide. Change the grille and side trim and that’s my car. It ran great ( recent Jasper engine) and drove good. Heck, I was just glad to have my own car. The Powerglide on that particular car was it’s shortcoming, however. After about 8 months of ownership it started making a noise above 50 mph. The transmission shop said it was a bearing. So, I kept it from over 50 which I am sure my parents approved. The thing was, I was quite aware my car wasn’t a high performance car and did not run it hard like a lot of my friends did. I considered converting it to a 3 speed until my Dad talked me out of it. After a few months of the noise we traded it in on a V8, auto. ’55 Ford. I did run that one a lot harder.
My wife owned a ’64 Chevy with a six and Powerglide and I have to say it performed a lot better. However, I have never liked Powerglides, or ” Two in the glue” as we used to call them, but, then, I prefer to shift for myself and have never bought a new car or truck with an automatic.
The Powerglide certainly was very important in GM’s history. It allowed Chevrolet to offer a cheap and relatively durable automatic to the low priced crowd. And as time went on there were improvements made to the transmission that did update it. However, it was definitely kept on the market for far too long.
For many years GM held out on paying the royalty’s on the Simpson gear set, but by 1964 they gave in and create the TH400. Why did it take until 1969 for GM to develop a light duty three speed auto with the Simpson gear set? Ford was late to the game with the Simpson geared transmission too, However, it did develop the light duty C4 before the heavy duty C6. GM really had no excuse. This to me was GM’s cost cutting starting to rear its head, as there was no other reason that the PG should have existed post ’64. GM knew that it could rest on its laurels and that people would continue to buy Chevrolets with PG’s, regardless of the fact that they were antiquated compared to the competition.
Speaking of the Simpson gearset, there seems to be a lot of misinformation on this thread. Howard Simpson invented the Simpson planetary gear set, not Chrysler. Ford was the first to licence the gear set but didn’t use it until the C4. Chrysler licenced it after Ford but was the first to bring it to market. The TH400 was the first GM transmission to use it, after GM finally gave in and paid the piper. GM and Ford did not reverse engineer or copy the Torquefilght, rather they all used the same concept by using the Simpson planetary gear set. In the end though the Simpson gear set has since become antiquated and many transmissions now use the Ravigneaux gear sets. Ford for example, went back to the Ravigneaux gear set. The older FMX used the Ravigneaux gear set and Ford went back to this for the 1980 AOD.
The limitation of the Simpson gearset is that the range of ratios you can get out of it is pretty constrained and narrowly spaced. If you want a passing gear in the range of 1.5:1, low is going to be no more than about 2.5:1. For big V-8s, that’s not necessarily bad, because the torque converter gives you at least 2:1 at stall and a starting ratio of 5:1 or better. For smog-controlled sixes and small V-8s, it was helpful to have a deeper low gear, which you can do with Ravigneaux gearsets. A Ford 4R70W, for instance, has a 2.84:1 low with 1.55:1 second, which isn’t possible with a Simpson gearset.
You were probably the only one in this thread who actually knew any of that information I posted above about the Simpson gearset. I think one of the main advantages of the Ravigneaux gearset is since it shares the same ring gear between the two planetary sets, it is more compact than a Simspson set (which shares a sun gear but has separate ring gears)
As fo the gear ratios, don’t forget the GM TH200-4R, which used a Simpson gearset, had basically the same ratio spead as an 4R70W. It was 2.74, 1.57, 1.0, and 0.67. And of course the TH200 3-speed used the same three ratios as the TH200-4R.
The said, the AOD/AODE didn’t have the wide spread, with a 2.40 first gear and 1.47 second gear. The big advantage Ford had with the AOD by going back to the Ravigneaux gearset was that they could use one gearset to make the four speeds. While the TH200-4R needed to add an extra gear set to add the overdrive.
Having driving both the PG and TH-350 in the same car, a 1966 Impala with 283-4bbl. I bought it from my Grandma, who bought it new. She really wanted the 427/425hp but got talked out of it. Anyway, I liked having that extra gear as a teenager. Looking back, I would have just kept the PG, seeing how efficient it was, and just put some monster gearing in the rear end since I used it for just driving around the city and drag racing at the strip. I miss that car and Grandma! 🙂
Was it the Powerglide where reverse gear had the same ratio as low, meaning the car could reach insane speeds in reverse?
The only automatic transmission that will roll off like a manual pull down in low gear and would start up
Not the only one. Any transmission with a rear oil pump could be push/roll started and most were into the early 1960s. This list from 1959 was pretty extensive. https://blog.consumerguide.com/historically-helpful-how-to-push-start-your-car/
All the foregoing in the Pop Sci article is perfectly true, but it really depends on the car and engine. My ’69 Cutlass has a 350 2bbl Rocket and Olds JetAway, which is actually a Buick Super Turbine 300 2 spd auto similar to PG but not identical (few or no parts interchange). In 95% of driving conditions you really don’t notice any difference, the Olds 350 has plenty of torque and will wind up too. I suppose if one did a lot of high speed highway driving and passing it’d matter more, but for the general driving public even in the late ’60s, who purchased an intermediate, not full-size, Olds at least, it was entirely satisfactory. I’d wager that most were completely unaware of what transmission they had, nor would they have cared if they were.
When I first got it I thought as the article writer did and was initially convinced I’d want to swap the 2 spd for a TH350, but after considerable driving have decided not to do so, but to keep it original. It’s durable, low maintenance and the car’s overall performance is fine for my purposes, as it was no doubt for those who bought them new in 1969. In 1970 a THM350 was the only choice for Olds V8 buyers in any event.
I like my ’59 Chevy w/ a 6 & Powerglide. This may be one of the most unobtrusive powertrains of its era. Between the smooth and quiet 6 w/ hydraulic lifters, (well-insulated, and with a correct NOS muffler) and the smoothness of Powerglide with just one upshift that you hardly notice–combined with the soft but steady 4-coil suspension (refined for ’59), it’s quite a cruiser! You hardly hear or feel the engine/transmission most of the time! Inspiration for the advertising slogan “Jet-Smooth Ride”.
No, this is not a performance car, but I say if you want to go fast, get a modern car (with modern precise handling & safety features).
As a kid, our next-door neighbor had a ’62 Bel Air wagon with a 6/PG. It made an eerie sounding “Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah” when in park. My ’59 does that too!
BTW, if 2 speeds were so bad, why did Ford come out with a new Fordomatic in ’59 with just 2 speeds? My mother’s 62 Comet had that one. Again, not a performance car, but I think it did OK. It drove 130,000 miles with no transmission trouble at all.
Even considering all the Powerglide’s shortcomings in this modern era of auto technology, if given a choice today in automatic transmissions between a CVT or a Powerglide I’d choose the Powerglide.
A 1971 full-size Chevrolet with a six and a Powerglide in taxi service? I did that too.
It had four wheel drum brakes, and every time you stepped on the brakes, it would change lanes. To the left. I told the owner to fix the brakes, because I wouldn’t drive it. He took it for a test drive, and sent it to the scrapyard…er..auto recycler. Hmmmm.
I kept scrolling through the multitudes of comments, nothing mentioned about the early Hydramatic. Here goes. In defense of the jerky hydramatic, while yes there were some that were really jerky, those weren’t adjusted correctly or had damage. I’ve drove a variety of early Hydramatics, mostly the Dual Range, and in proper condition they are very smooth. I’ve drove Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Kaiser’s and Lincoln. I think the Lincoln was the nicest one. While the shifts were noticeable, there wasn’t any “jerk”, just a smooth shift to the next gear.