<VV> Powerglide interchange

[Tony Underwood]

At 04:51 PM 4/25/2010, Bill Hubbell wrote:
>Tony,
>
>Consider this - the point of GM's modifying the Powerglide was to
>accommodate the higher torque of the 164 CID engines.  Your transmission
>already had an issue which causes it to operate outside of factory specs.


Agreed... it does a thing or two other Powerglides can't do.   ;)


>This pre-existing problem


...pre-existed for 26 years so far (that I know of).   I never notice 
it unless I try manually shifting the transmission, which I would 
sometimes do once a month or so just to see if it still wants to 
downshift backwards.   It always does, so lately I've stopped testing 
its manual shifting shenanigans.    When operated normally, try as I 
might, I can't get it to do anything but shift normally... thus there 
must be something flawed with its normal everyday function because I 
can force it to do something unusual if I try to make it do things I 
otherwise never try to make it do.

This could get to be fun after a while, doncha think?


>may therefore be masking any problem that might be
>caused by mating it to the 110hp engine.


One thing it does not mask is the more rapid acceleration issue the 
car now exhibits if I mash down on the skinny pedal too much.   It 
didn't do that before I installed the fresh 110 engine...  need to 
look into that, maybe retard the timing or readjust the throttle 
linkage or something to make it function normally as per GM's 
original 1960 specifications.   What are your thoughts, Bill?



Or, I could do like one other 'Vair guy said,

"Why would you do that in the first place?"

      "To show you what I can make it do."

"And the purpose is...?"

      "To see if you've ever see one do that."

"No.   I never try to mess with the shift lever when I drive one."

      "I'd still like to know what makes it do that when I do this 
shift thingy like that."

"Does it make the car run better when you do that?"

      "Well, no..."

"Then stop doing that.   Are you a dummy or something?"



>My point is that if we do not run the test with perfectly functioning parts
>there will be additional variables introduced that will make it very
>difficult to come to any accurate conclusions.


OK, your point is quite well taken.


Everyone, ignore what I said about my '60 Powerglide and its 110 
engine.   Any comments I may have made will not be an accurate 
reflection of how an early (and evidently) "worn out" Powerglide will 
react to the larger engine.   I'll just keep driving it as-is, 
defects and all until I can look into resolving that more rapid 
acceleration issue I mentioned that everyone is supposed to 
ignore.    And then I'll still drive it.




tony..