Scanned this for Dadoes tonight, some good bedside reading.
This pdf document is 6mb...
This pdf document is 6mb...
Unimatic Mechanism Reoperation Manual
- Thread starter Unimatic1140
- Start date
Help Support :
Excellent!
Thanks! I've printed it and will study it thoroughly!
Thanks! I've printed it and will study it thoroughly!
kenmore1978
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,119
Frigidaire mechanisms
So one has to wonder why Frigidaire kept re-designing their mechanism to accomplish the same end result in the wash action. Of all the designs whcih was the most reliable? During the Rollermatic era, they bragged about how there were no belts, gears, or pulleys, but then the next design had a belt. Wait, now that I think about it, this was typical GM thinking. Rather than design somethig well, and then improving on that design, GM would re-design stuff from scratch, fix all the bugs over a number of years (testing it on the public), then, just as they would get it right, start all over again, although by this time, they would have a bad rep. They did this with cars (Corvair, Vega), engines (diesels), transmissions (Hydra-matics). In each case, the final versions were reliable, but it was too late so far as the public was concerned.
In the case of Hydra-Matics, they redesigned it 4 times between its introduction in 1940 and 1964. Each redesign caused many problems (1956 Hydra-Matics were notorious) that would take years for them to ferret out and address. Ford and Chrysler, on the other hand, got a really good transmission design from the beginning and refined it over many years. The transmission in a 1951 and a 1981 Ford are basically the same, as is the transmisson in a 1954 Chrysler product and a 1984 car.
Sorry for my rant, but it suddenly clicked about how the different Frigidaire drives and the GM philosophy of doing things jibed.
Anyway, amongest your opinions from the guys who've worked on these, which of the mechanisms was the most reliable?
So one has to wonder why Frigidaire kept re-designing their mechanism to accomplish the same end result in the wash action. Of all the designs whcih was the most reliable? During the Rollermatic era, they bragged about how there were no belts, gears, or pulleys, but then the next design had a belt. Wait, now that I think about it, this was typical GM thinking. Rather than design somethig well, and then improving on that design, GM would re-design stuff from scratch, fix all the bugs over a number of years (testing it on the public), then, just as they would get it right, start all over again, although by this time, they would have a bad rep. They did this with cars (Corvair, Vega), engines (diesels), transmissions (Hydra-matics). In each case, the final versions were reliable, but it was too late so far as the public was concerned.
In the case of Hydra-Matics, they redesigned it 4 times between its introduction in 1940 and 1964. Each redesign caused many problems (1956 Hydra-Matics were notorious) that would take years for them to ferret out and address. Ford and Chrysler, on the other hand, got a really good transmission design from the beginning and refined it over many years. The transmission in a 1951 and a 1981 Ford are basically the same, as is the transmisson in a 1954 Chrysler product and a 1984 car.
Sorry for my rant, but it suddenly clicked about how the different Frigidaire drives and the GM philosophy of doing things jibed.
Anyway, amongest your opinions from the guys who've worked on these, which of the mechanisms was the most reliable?
The Unimatic is by far the most solidly built, the pulsamatic and mutlimatic were also very good, almost as good as a Unimatic but not quite. The rollermatic transmission had a tendency to wear out and become noisy or inoperative a lot quicker than the previous designs.
pulsator-power
Well-known member
Robert- thanks, it will be facinating reading.
Jerry
Jerry
westytoploader
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 4,485
Yes...even though I'd take pretty much any vertical-action Frigidaire (LOL), I would rather have a Multimatic than, let's say, a Rollermatic or 1-18 (although if it was a Variable Speed, High Fashion, or Holy Grail I'd jump on it). I talked with Rick on the phone (he had a 1971 1-18) and he said that the 1-18/Rollermatic spin clutch, which was the diameter of a water glass (not very big), tended to wear out quickly and had the clutch linings replaced more than once on his.
In the videos, the Rollermatic spun the water out and reached 710 RPM rather slowly compared to the Unimatic, which got up to 1140 RPM in only 26 seconds! How do the Pulsamatic and Multimatic fare in that category, as far as getting the water out of the tub and ramping up to full spin speed in a short amount of time? That really adds to the entertainment, IMHO.
In the videos, the Rollermatic spun the water out and reached 710 RPM rather slowly compared to the Unimatic, which got up to 1140 RPM in only 26 seconds! How do the Pulsamatic and Multimatic fare in that category, as far as getting the water out of the tub and ramping up to full spin speed in a short amount of time? That really adds to the entertainment, IMHO.
Off Topic- Hydromatic
kenmore1978 wrote:
"Ford and Chrysler, on the other hand, got a really good transmission design from the beginning and refined it over many years. The transmission in a 1951 and a 1981 Ford are basically the same, as is the transmisson in a 1954 Chrysler product and a 1984 car."
*******************************************
The Chrysler Torqflight didn't come out untill about 1957. The earlier designs were semi-automatics.
A 1954 Ford would have either a Borg/Warner or a GM Hydromatic. Ford used a lot of Borg/Warner units, in fact the Ford FMX trans is a loose copy of the Borg/Warner cast-iron trans. The C4 came out about '65 (with bugs) and the C6 was later than that. The C5 came out in '78 and was a disaster for a few years untill they fixed it.
I'm not a big fan of GM, but the Hydromatic was the pioneeer. The original 4 speed Hydromatic was replaced because it was quite heavy, and expensive to manufacture.
Ken D.
kenmore1978 wrote:
"Ford and Chrysler, on the other hand, got a really good transmission design from the beginning and refined it over many years. The transmission in a 1951 and a 1981 Ford are basically the same, as is the transmisson in a 1954 Chrysler product and a 1984 car."
*******************************************
The Chrysler Torqflight didn't come out untill about 1957. The earlier designs were semi-automatics.
A 1954 Ford would have either a Borg/Warner or a GM Hydromatic. Ford used a lot of Borg/Warner units, in fact the Ford FMX trans is a loose copy of the Borg/Warner cast-iron trans. The C4 came out about '65 (with bugs) and the C6 was later than that. The C5 came out in '78 and was a disaster for a few years untill they fixed it.
I'm not a big fan of GM, but the Hydromatic was the pioneeer. The original 4 speed Hydromatic was replaced because it was quite heavy, and expensive to manufacture.
Ken D.
Pulsamatics & Multimatics also get up to speed in about 30 seconds or less because just like the Unimatic they have no clutch. Full motor torque is applied to the wash tub, and away goes the water instantly!
kenmore1978
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,119
Transmisson enginnering
"The Chrysler Torqflight didn't come out untill about 1957. The earlier designs were semi-automatics."
Chrysler introduced the Poweflite 2 speed fully automatic transmission in 1954. Torqueflite 3 speed introduced mid-year 1956. 2 speed Powerflite still available after that on lower line cars
"A 1954 Ford would have either a Borg/Warner or a GM Hydromatic."
All Fords and Mercurys used Borg-Warner (co-developed with Ford) no Hydra-Matics except in Lincoln until 1954, when replaced by beefed-up Borg-Warner unit.
"The original 4 speed Hydromatic was replaced because it was quite heavy, and expensive to manufacture."
The last 4 speed Hydra-Matics in 1964 were just as heavy as the first ones. They never got the aluminum case. That didn't happen until Turbo Hydra-Matics were introduced in 1964. This doesn't include other GM transmissions like Turboglide, Powerglide, Dual Path, Dynaflow, Turbine Drive, Roto Hydra-Matic (a real dog) which did get aluminum cases earlier
"The Chrysler Torqflight didn't come out untill about 1957. The earlier designs were semi-automatics."
Chrysler introduced the Poweflite 2 speed fully automatic transmission in 1954. Torqueflite 3 speed introduced mid-year 1956. 2 speed Powerflite still available after that on lower line cars
"A 1954 Ford would have either a Borg/Warner or a GM Hydromatic."
All Fords and Mercurys used Borg-Warner (co-developed with Ford) no Hydra-Matics except in Lincoln until 1954, when replaced by beefed-up Borg-Warner unit.
"The original 4 speed Hydromatic was replaced because it was quite heavy, and expensive to manufacture."
The last 4 speed Hydra-Matics in 1964 were just as heavy as the first ones. They never got the aluminum case. That didn't happen until Turbo Hydra-Matics were introduced in 1964. This doesn't include other GM transmissions like Turboglide, Powerglide, Dual Path, Dynaflow, Turbine Drive, Roto Hydra-Matic (a real dog) which did get aluminum cases earlier
Linclon didn't stop using Hydra Matic until the 1955 mod
and its version of the Ford-O-Matic/Merc-O-Matic was called Turbo Drive.
FYI Mercury's version of the Cruise-O-Matic introduced on Ford's and Mercury's for 1958 was called Multi Drive Merc-O-Matic and in the 1959-60 Edsel it was just called plain Multi Drive. I believe it was still called just Turbo Drive in the Linclon (correct me if I am wrong please). PAT COFFEY
and its version of the Ford-O-Matic/Merc-O-Matic was called Turbo Drive.
FYI Mercury's version of the Cruise-O-Matic introduced on Ford's and Mercury's for 1958 was called Multi Drive Merc-O-Matic and in the 1959-60 Edsel it was just called plain Multi Drive. I believe it was still called just Turbo Drive in the Linclon (correct me if I am wrong please). PAT COFFEY
kenmore1978
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,119
Close,
You're right EXCEPT for what Edsel called their versions. For 1958, it was called "TeleTouch Drive", standard on the 2 upper models and optional on the 2 lower models. Don't remember what the standard lever operated automatic was called on the lower models. For 1959-60, the 2 speed version (equivalent to Ford-O-Matic) was called "Mile-O-Matic" and the 3 speed version (equivalent to Cruise-O-Matic) was called "Dual Power Drive"
You're right EXCEPT for what Edsel called their versions. For 1958, it was called "TeleTouch Drive", standard on the 2 upper models and optional on the 2 lower models. Don't remember what the standard lever operated automatic was called on the lower models. For 1959-60, the 2 speed version (equivalent to Ford-O-Matic) was called "Mile-O-Matic" and the 3 speed version (equivalent to Cruise-O-Matic) was called "Dual Power Drive"
