Announcement

Collapse

Get more Tips, Specs and Technical Data!

Did you know... this Forum is a service of the Studebaker Drivers Club? For more technical tips, specifications, history and tech data, visit the Tech Tips page at the SDC Homepage: www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tips.asp
See more
See less

need help identifying a part

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • need help identifying a part

    Hi, we had Studebakers in the 50s and 60s. I've got what I think is a transmission from one of the vehicles. It was removed, then probably replaced, but never rebuilt, and may still be in working order. The part number is DG 20 505 P N2. The housing is cylindrical in shape with a gear shaft protruding from one end. I would be surprised if it was NOT a Studebaker part.
    Thanks!

  • #2
    OK I'm getting the sense that the trans I have is a precursor model to the DG 250?
    I will say this: my mother used to stall out our Studebaker bigtime, then she'd flood the carbuerator trying to crank it back up again and we'd sit and sit. I don't really blame the car unless the idle was set too low and it would just cut out; or maybe the brakes had something to do with it.
    The Stude I remember riding in (back seat)was a 4 door sedan black in color. There were no seat belts but we kids hung on to a strap that was affixed behind the front passenger seat. Hung on, of course, when the vehicle wasn't stalled out.
    I have never driven a Studebaker but I am a qualified Bentley driver!

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, most 4-doors had the "robe rail" across the back of the front seat (ones that would have had a DG tranny in them anyway)
      Do you remember if the rear doors had vent windows in them? The top-of-the-line 4drs ('51-2-3-4 Land Cruisers or '55 President sedans)would have had those rear vent windows. The 51 thru 54 LCs & Commanders would have used a DG-200 transmission. Any chance you overlooked a zero behind that DG-20 ??? '55 Presidents would have come with the DG-250M variant of this tranny line. After '55, Studebaker dropped the DG line save for '56 Champions and some truck applications.

      Miscreant at large.

      1957 Transtar 1/2ton
      1960 Larkvertible V8
      1958 Provincial wagon
      1953 Commander coupe
      1957 President 2-dr
      1955 President State
      1951 Champion Biz cpe
      1963 Daytona project FS
      No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you Mr. Biggs!
        I've just taken another look at the trans. I was looking at one side and turned it around to find this plate:
        Detroit Gear Div. Borg-Warner Corp. Detroit Michigan USA
        Model DG 200
        Serial No. SCO 137178

        Is this a 'less desirable' transmission? I wonder if it was replaced with a DG 250. The transmission in question has been kept indoors and has no visible rust. I had to take a toothbrush & WD40 to clean off the serial plate & stamped numbers. I might have some other little doo-dads around.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, a DG 200 is less desirable than a DG 250, but desirable is a relative term. It is getting hard to find any of this series of transmissions in good shape. There are plenty of cars out there with DG 200s whose owners would be glad to get the transmission.
          Gary L.
          Wappinger, NY

          SDC member since 1968
          Studebaker enthusiast much longer

          Comment


          • #6
            I can't verify its condition internally. the shaft does not move freely--I tried to turn it by hand. Perhaps it takes the action of a drive train to make that happen-- plus it has been sitting for ~40 years. I'll take another look at it and also try to find records of which model Studebaker it came out of. Thanks for everyone's advice & help so far!
            ___________________________
            I figure this trans came from a 52 commander convertible-- there is a draft of a letter my dad sent to Studebaker Corporation South Bend 27 Indiana. His complaint about the transmission was that the reverse feature failed, so he had replaced the transmission-- otherwise everything about the transmission was OK. I'm guessing the problem was due to linkage & possibly oil pressure failure.

            My transmission has no fluid in it aside from a small amount on the bottom visible by flashlight.

            I've also found two manuals:

            1951 Passenger Car Shop Manual
            Studebaker Automatic Drive Shop Manual covering 1954 Champion model 15G

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi there, '50s guy.

              From your description, I'm guessing that the torque convertor is not present, when you say you tried to turn the shaft. If you look closely at that shaft, you will see an outer splined shaft, and a smaller splined shaft inside it, projecting a bit further out. The outer shaft is the stator shaft, and is fixed; it will NOT turn. The inner shaft is the one that should turn.

              Sounds like this is a "take-out" transmission, and that it may well have been taken out because of some problems. But if it has been stored in dry place, it could well be rebuildable. A fellow in another thread is looking for a DG 250, but he might accept a DG 200, or possibly the DG 200 could be rebuilt and upgraded to DG 250 specs.

              I would definitely NOT throw it away.

              Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
              Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

              Comment


              • #8
                Regardless of what variant you have, the sad fact is that any transmission mechs that ever got familiar with the DG trannies are retired or have forgotten most of what they ever knew about the units. The few that STILL work on them are fading fast.
                You could assume that one automatic tranny is just like another so far as a "technician" would be concerned. But that would be a way erroneous assumption. Most of today's tranny shops won't even LOOK at a DG. They have to feel like they know what they're dealing with and they're gonna have to stand behind thier work if they were to take on such a task.
                The DGs were different in many ways from modern trannies. Sure, the principles are the same but have you ever seen the guts of one spread out? It takes someone who REALLY knows the DG units to have half a chance at taking one apart and having it work right when they get it back together.
                Add to that that the pool of parts is dwindling as time goes on and it's doubtful that anyone will step up to make any new parts. It would be a money-losing venture even IF they could engineer the new pieces to the specs and quality of the original stuff.
                Then throw in that it requires some special tools to handle one of these in an efficient manner - most shops won't have them and can't get them in this day and age.
                I've got 3 DG trannies out in the shop at the moment. You can't turn the input shafts on any of them by hand, so I assume that that's normal.[:I]
                It was a marvelous tranny for it's time. Fact is, even tho Studebaker co-designed it for their own line of vehicles, Studebaker abandoned it to use a cheaper automatic in a move to save money. After that, a relative few units were used in some foreign cars, but it was a trickle compared to when Studebaker was using them.

                Miscreant at large.

                1957 Transtar 1/2ton
                1960 Larkvertible V8
                1958 Provincial wagon
                1953 Commander coupe
                1957 President 2-dr
                1955 President State
                1951 Champion Biz cpe
                1963 Daytona project FS
                No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for your comments. This trans isn't going to hit the scrap pile, yet. Those of you who'd like to trouble shoot the possible problem might be able to determine whether it was an internal or external problem. I think it may have had to do with oil pressure--
                  in looking at the manual hydraulic oil pressure (or lack thereof) appears to control the reverse function of the trans. I don't know the mileage on the vehicle but the letter was written in 1963, and the '52 Commander Convertible was most probably purchased 'used'.

                  from my father's letter:

                  failure of the present (transmission) was as follows: In backing up slowly to go home, the car went roughly into reverse. I thought I might have backed up against a stone or something so went forward and backed again and headed home with no further questioning of the reverse. The next time I got in to use the car again there was no reverse.

                  In the case of the first transmission I checked the shuttle valve and interlock valves and the springs seemed to operate freely without sticking. I figured it was probably in the reverse freewheel unit so I got another transmission.

                  he goes on: some of your experts might be able to pin point the trouble and tell me what parts to replace and where I might get them--remembering that everything works OK but no reverse.

                  Very truly yours---
                  (Dad)

                  So can this transmission once again function properly? I wonder!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sure it could function again. With whatever expertise and parts are required to recitfy the problem. Have you got a car in mind to fit it to[?]
                    At the very least, it might be cannibalized to provide parts for another like unit. I've got a couple of DG hulks here that I took on just for that reason. Someone was gonna toss them because they found a working unit to use instead of addressing the expensive repair work of one that had a problem or the unit had come out of a car that had been cusstomized.[8] People just bring Stude parts here because they don't have the heart to toss them. [}]

                    Miscreant at large.

                    1957 Transtar 1/2ton
                    1960 Larkvertible V8
                    1958 Provincial wagon
                    1953 Commander coupe
                    1957 President 2-dr
                    1955 President State
                    1951 Champion Biz cpe
                    1963 Daytona project FS
                    No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mr Biggs, where is 'here'?
                      If I had the 'rest' of a restorable 'like' Studebaker I'd keep the transmission myself!
                      I live in the Washington DC metropolitan area. I've had occasion to chat with the local Studebaker club members at car shows but it has been a while.
                      An aside: there was an auto dealership in Damascus, Maryland-- for some reason I recall this place had quite the inventory of warehoused Studebaker parts-- this was about 15 years ago. Can anyone confirm my recollection?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm about as far west of you as one can get without getting saltwater between your toes.
                        A warehouse of Stude parts? Oooooooooh - I'm salivating! Too far away tho.
                        I had/have a lead on a stash of them in Indiana but the ex-car dealer that has them (ex-Chrysler dealer) won't even talk about selling them. So they just collect dust in an old hangar. I figure, he'll croak and the kids'll toss all that old "stuff" that dad's kept for years.[xx(] It's happened before![V]

                        Miscreant at large.

                        1957 Transtar 1/2ton
                        1960 Larkvertible V8
                        1958 Provincial wagon
                        1953 Commander coupe
                        1957 President 2-dr
                        1955 President State
                        1951 Champion Biz cpe
                        1963 Daytona project FS
                        No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It has been 25 years since I remember working on the internals of one of those DG transmissions. The type of reverse function failure that you describe sounds very familiar for these transmissions. It is usually caused by something relatively easy to repair. The gasket in the valve body blows out at the reverse function section. A new valve body gasket and fresh fluid normally repairs the problem. I have used Studebaker parts to repair a Jaguar transmiision. The Studebaker parts were easier to get and cheaper than Jaguar parts. The gasket that I refer to is the one internal to the sections of the valve body, not a gasket where the valve body mounts in the transmission. I hope that my memory is correct. If you look in your transmission manual, it will probably be clear.
                          Gary L.
                          Wappinger, NY

                          SDC member since 1968
                          Studebaker enthusiast much longer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thank you all for your advice. Yes, I've got the manuals but its waaay better to get LIVE TECHNICAL HELP! even though I don't have reason to do anything with the transmission other than let it lay around in my basement for another ten years. I guess I could look for a Stude on the cheap with a failed transmission but BODY, interior, electric & mechanical all in great condition-- no rust, of course... oh yes, all original... Just needs a transmission and a gasket. Sounds real simple.
                            Maybe I'll schlep it up to Hershey this autumn now that might be fun.
                            thanks again

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:Originally posted by studegary

                              The type of reverse function failure that you describe sounds very familiar for these transmissions. It is usually caused by something relatively easy to repair. The gasket in the valve body blows out at the reverse function section. A new valve body gasket and fresh fluid normally repairs the problem. The gasket that I refer to is the one internal to the sections of the valve body, not a gasket where the valve body mounts in the transmission.
                              studegary, I'm trying to visualize this without having a trans mounted on a Studebaker, and me standing next to it all. If the fault was in the gasket (the one you suggest replacing!)where exactly would that be... were there to have been a 'leaky' gasket... at a 'high point' in otherwords, not low enough to the ground, physically speaking, to cause egregious loss of fluids due to gravitational drip... unless under pressure? ouch, this hurts so bad especially cause I'm tracing the fault that my father apparently overlooked.

                              quote:Originally posted by studegary

                              If you look in your transmission manual, it will probably be clear.
                              I guess it might be clear to SOME people, but maybe just not to my father or my brother of course that is only if I am correct! and its easier being correct without having a need to fix a vehicle so that you can once again drive it. At this point in time I am not subjected to the same type of fault tracing analysis that my dad & bro were in 1963---trying to get it back on the road ASAP. As Studebaker Drivers (can't claim to be ONE of those) I am sure you can all sympathize with their former plight!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X