Falling in Love with a Muncie, Again (Long)
02-14-2006, 02:36 AM
#1
Race Director
Thread Starter
Falling in Love with a Muncie, Again (Long)
I recently ended my nearly one-year experiment of having a Tremec/Keisler 5-speed manual tranny in my 67 roadster. When I bought this unit, I was looking forward to the advertised advantages of having a numerically lower first gear (3.27 vs. 2.52 in my M20 Muncie) and having an overdrive fifth gear. I did come to appreciate the better acceleration with the stock 327/350 engine, and I really liked the quieter, lower revving 5th gear (70 mph went from 3,000 rpm to 2,000 rpm). I was also hoping for better gas mileage on longer drives.
The main thing I learned to love was the smooth, buttery shifting and the light, easy engagement --- of the original Muncie, not the 5-speed. I became reacquainted with the old-fashioned wonderfulness of up shifting and down shifting after taking the Tremec/Keisler OUT of my midyear two weeks ago and putting back the Muncie that God, Zora and the Road Gods intended should be there.
Some of you guys have done this swap and others are undoubtedly contemplating it, so here is my experience for your edification.
First of all, the Tremec is physically a much larger gearbox than the Muncie, and there is precious little room for it beneath a midyear body. The mechanic who installed it, Dave Herlinger in Mt. View CA (an expert in 53-82 Vettes for 30+ years), was not a happy camper doing his first-ever Tremec install. The biggest problem is that there is very little clearance between the top-side edges of the Tremec and the midyear console/floor. Eventually the foil-backed insulation had to be removed for there to be any chance at all of the 5-speed going in there. I wasn't happy about that, but we forged ahead anyhow. When the tranny was finally installed, there was almost no clearance between it and the console's fiberglass. In order to get any clearance at all, Dave had to wedge a couple of hard rubber spacers (differential snubbers) between the tranny cross member and the floor of the car. Hmmm, not good. We had to go to this extreme even though my 67 appears to have a no-hit body with under 60K total miles, and the floor definitely has not sagged in any way, shape or form. Numerous calls to the Keisler folks yielded no insights into why their tranny was such an impossibly tight fit in my car, though there was much speculation about my originally having been built "too well" at the factory! They suggested shimming up the body on the body mounts --- which would have been insane, and very expensive, since you'd be screwing up body clearances for the radiator support, bumper brackets, brake lines, etc., etc. ad nauseum et infinitum. When the 5-speed was finally jammed in there, there was 1/16-inch clearance above it and the console floor and perhaps 3/16-inch clearance between the new driveshaft and the tranny cross member --- after you bent a parking brake pulley out of the way. Hmmm, again.
On the road, once broken in, I really enjoyed the stouter first gear when taking off. Top gear was wonderfully quiet. No doubt about it, top gear is what it's all about with this swap.
The 5-speed never shifted in an acceptably smooth manner. Compared to a Muncie it is extremely heavy and notchy. As the weeks went by this notchiness got worse, sometimes to the point where I literally couldn't get the shift lever into 1st or 2nd. I would have to retreat to neutral, then try again for 1st or 2nd. I autocrossed the car twice with the 5-speed, and in a minute-long autocross I suppose I lost 3-4 seconds because of the balky shifter. As this condition worsened, it felt like I was using the shift lever to stir a bucket of rocks rather than move from gear to gear. Over the decades I've owned 20 midyears with Muncies or Saginaws. Sometimes they were adjusted well and sometimes not, but ALL shifted more smoothly than the Keisler 5-speed.
Interestingly, another midyear autocrosser mentioned that he heard a loud mechanical "clutch rattle" when I was out on the circuit. I could hear it on the freeway when I was in a lane beside a cement wall/divider and could hear the reflected mechanical noise …… a noise I'd never heard from any other Vette I've owned. I'm guessing this noise is related to the defect in the 5-speed, whatever it is.
After many phone calls and emails to Keisler they eventually sent me a new shift tower, which is the mechanism they add to a Tremec to offset the shifter so it is positioned correctly for a midyear. Unfortunately, nothing changed after this was installed. Evidently the problem lay somewhere deeper in the transmission. At this point I was pretty tired of dealing with this troublesome transmission. I asked Keisler to refund my money for the defective transmission, but they said that in such a case I would have to pay for shipping their defective 5-speed back to them, which I thought was wrong. Instead, they ended up sending me a new 5-speed, and I later returned the defective one to them. In this case, they paid to have the defective tranny shipped to them. This way I avoided spending my money to send their defective unit back to them. It was frustrating and unsatisfying dealing with the Keisler organization, because whoever I talked to couldn't make a decision without running it by the owner, which usually meant adding at least a day (or a weekend, or more) to the process.
Instead of putting the replacement 5-speed in my 67 and maybe having the same problems all over again, I had Dave Herlinger rebuild my factory-original Muncie and put it back in my car. I sold the new Keisler to someone else, after Dave had thoroughly briefed him on my problems with the Keisler tranny and the difficulty installing it. I would have preferred returning the defective tranny to Keisler, and getting a refund, but I didn't want to pay to ship the broken tranny from California to Tennessee. So I had them send me a new tranny, which I then sold and thereby saved on shipping costs.
I picked up my newly re-Muncied 67 at Dave's shop two Saturdays ago. After I turned out his driveway and headed up the street, I shifted into second gear. Even with new synchros, it was the smoothest shift I'd felt in nearly a year -- no notchiness, no balking, just "in like Flynn" -- ahhhhhhhh, YES! The 15-minute drive home was one long celebration of gentle, smooth up shifts and down shifts. Once again, all is right with my Vette.
Strangely enough, the Muncie didn't feel slower than the Keisler, which was unexpected, given the difference in its first-gear ratios (2.52 Muncie vs. 3.27 Keisler). After a few shifts it became obvious why --- the Keisler was so difficult and slow to shift, and it was just so plain old hard to move the shift lever, that any additional quickness from the steeper gearing was negated by its glacial shifter operation. The Muncie shifts so smoothly that it FEELS faster, which is what it's all about on the street. The Muncie will only get smoother over time, as the synchros wear in, in contrast to the Keisler, which got slower and clunkier.
All in all, this was the most painful and unsatisfying aftermarket experience I've ever had since I bought my first midyear in 1968. I ended up spending nearly as much money to install and get rid of that defective Keisler 5-speed as the darned transmission cost initially. Not to mention months and months of having a transmission in my car that significantly detracted from driving pleasure. To top this experience off, I never realized any significant mileage increase on the road. My 67 with the Muncie and 3.36 rear gets up to about 17 mpg on the highway, and the Keisler added only a mile per gallon to this. At that rate I'll have to live 200 years and drive every day in 5th gear to realize enough fuel savings to amortize the cost of the 5-speed.
Others will have had somewhat cheerier experiences with a Keisler-modified Termec. Good on them!
It was sunny today, so I fired up the 67, dropped the top and focused for 25 miles on each smoooooth up shift and smoooooth down shift of my beautiful reborn Muncie, knowing that somewhere out there Zora is smiling. So am I!
Lou
The main thing I learned to love was the smooth, buttery shifting and the light, easy engagement --- of the original Muncie, not the 5-speed. I became reacquainted with the old-fashioned wonderfulness of up shifting and down shifting after taking the Tremec/Keisler OUT of my midyear two weeks ago and putting back the Muncie that God, Zora and the Road Gods intended should be there.
Some of you guys have done this swap and others are undoubtedly contemplating it, so here is my experience for your edification.
First of all, the Tremec is physically a much larger gearbox than the Muncie, and there is precious little room for it beneath a midyear body. The mechanic who installed it, Dave Herlinger in Mt. View CA (an expert in 53-82 Vettes for 30+ years), was not a happy camper doing his first-ever Tremec install. The biggest problem is that there is very little clearance between the top-side edges of the Tremec and the midyear console/floor. Eventually the foil-backed insulation had to be removed for there to be any chance at all of the 5-speed going in there. I wasn't happy about that, but we forged ahead anyhow. When the tranny was finally installed, there was almost no clearance between it and the console's fiberglass. In order to get any clearance at all, Dave had to wedge a couple of hard rubber spacers (differential snubbers) between the tranny cross member and the floor of the car. Hmmm, not good. We had to go to this extreme even though my 67 appears to have a no-hit body with under 60K total miles, and the floor definitely has not sagged in any way, shape or form. Numerous calls to the Keisler folks yielded no insights into why their tranny was such an impossibly tight fit in my car, though there was much speculation about my originally having been built "too well" at the factory! They suggested shimming up the body on the body mounts --- which would have been insane, and very expensive, since you'd be screwing up body clearances for the radiator support, bumper brackets, brake lines, etc., etc. ad nauseum et infinitum. When the 5-speed was finally jammed in there, there was 1/16-inch clearance above it and the console floor and perhaps 3/16-inch clearance between the new driveshaft and the tranny cross member --- after you bent a parking brake pulley out of the way. Hmmm, again.
On the road, once broken in, I really enjoyed the stouter first gear when taking off. Top gear was wonderfully quiet. No doubt about it, top gear is what it's all about with this swap.
The 5-speed never shifted in an acceptably smooth manner. Compared to a Muncie it is extremely heavy and notchy. As the weeks went by this notchiness got worse, sometimes to the point where I literally couldn't get the shift lever into 1st or 2nd. I would have to retreat to neutral, then try again for 1st or 2nd. I autocrossed the car twice with the 5-speed, and in a minute-long autocross I suppose I lost 3-4 seconds because of the balky shifter. As this condition worsened, it felt like I was using the shift lever to stir a bucket of rocks rather than move from gear to gear. Over the decades I've owned 20 midyears with Muncies or Saginaws. Sometimes they were adjusted well and sometimes not, but ALL shifted more smoothly than the Keisler 5-speed.
Interestingly, another midyear autocrosser mentioned that he heard a loud mechanical "clutch rattle" when I was out on the circuit. I could hear it on the freeway when I was in a lane beside a cement wall/divider and could hear the reflected mechanical noise …… a noise I'd never heard from any other Vette I've owned. I'm guessing this noise is related to the defect in the 5-speed, whatever it is.
After many phone calls and emails to Keisler they eventually sent me a new shift tower, which is the mechanism they add to a Tremec to offset the shifter so it is positioned correctly for a midyear. Unfortunately, nothing changed after this was installed. Evidently the problem lay somewhere deeper in the transmission. At this point I was pretty tired of dealing with this troublesome transmission. I asked Keisler to refund my money for the defective transmission, but they said that in such a case I would have to pay for shipping their defective 5-speed back to them, which I thought was wrong. Instead, they ended up sending me a new 5-speed, and I later returned the defective one to them. In this case, they paid to have the defective tranny shipped to them. This way I avoided spending my money to send their defective unit back to them. It was frustrating and unsatisfying dealing with the Keisler organization, because whoever I talked to couldn't make a decision without running it by the owner, which usually meant adding at least a day (or a weekend, or more) to the process.
Instead of putting the replacement 5-speed in my 67 and maybe having the same problems all over again, I had Dave Herlinger rebuild my factory-original Muncie and put it back in my car. I sold the new Keisler to someone else, after Dave had thoroughly briefed him on my problems with the Keisler tranny and the difficulty installing it. I would have preferred returning the defective tranny to Keisler, and getting a refund, but I didn't want to pay to ship the broken tranny from California to Tennessee. So I had them send me a new tranny, which I then sold and thereby saved on shipping costs.
I picked up my newly re-Muncied 67 at Dave's shop two Saturdays ago. After I turned out his driveway and headed up the street, I shifted into second gear. Even with new synchros, it was the smoothest shift I'd felt in nearly a year -- no notchiness, no balking, just "in like Flynn" -- ahhhhhhhh, YES! The 15-minute drive home was one long celebration of gentle, smooth up shifts and down shifts. Once again, all is right with my Vette.
Strangely enough, the Muncie didn't feel slower than the Keisler, which was unexpected, given the difference in its first-gear ratios (2.52 Muncie vs. 3.27 Keisler). After a few shifts it became obvious why --- the Keisler was so difficult and slow to shift, and it was just so plain old hard to move the shift lever, that any additional quickness from the steeper gearing was negated by its glacial shifter operation. The Muncie shifts so smoothly that it FEELS faster, which is what it's all about on the street. The Muncie will only get smoother over time, as the synchros wear in, in contrast to the Keisler, which got slower and clunkier.
All in all, this was the most painful and unsatisfying aftermarket experience I've ever had since I bought my first midyear in 1968. I ended up spending nearly as much money to install and get rid of that defective Keisler 5-speed as the darned transmission cost initially. Not to mention months and months of having a transmission in my car that significantly detracted from driving pleasure. To top this experience off, I never realized any significant mileage increase on the road. My 67 with the Muncie and 3.36 rear gets up to about 17 mpg on the highway, and the Keisler added only a mile per gallon to this. At that rate I'll have to live 200 years and drive every day in 5th gear to realize enough fuel savings to amortize the cost of the 5-speed.
Others will have had somewhat cheerier experiences with a Keisler-modified Termec. Good on them!
It was sunny today, so I fired up the 67, dropped the top and focused for 25 miles on each smoooooth up shift and smoooooth down shift of my beautiful reborn Muncie, knowing that somewhere out there Zora is smiling. So am I!
Lou
02-14-2006, 06:45 AM
#2
Team Owner
Lou, great post and good information. I also feel these cars are better off and more trouble free when you keep them factory stock. 
02-14-2006, 07:38 AM
#3
Melting Slicks
cool
Great post and very informative.. I've heard both good and bad things about the tremec, but would also like to keep my muncie in my car.. When you did drive it, what was the mileage... I would imagine the ROI would be a bit shorter now.. :-)
Thanks,
/jc
Thanks,
/jc
02-14-2006, 07:51 AM
#4
Racer
what do you other Keisler owners have to add??
Very interesting reading, indeed!
After this I really start to worry about my plan to get me one of those 5-speed boxes
Hope other owners will contribute too.
After this I really start to worry about my plan to get me one of those 5-speed boxes
Hope other owners will contribute too.
02-14-2006, 09:37 AM
#5
Burning Brakes
Member Since: May 2003
Location: DAVIE/FORT LAUDERDALE FL
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
lOU-GREAT POST!
I have installed one Keisler trans in a 67 coupe. I ran in to the same clearance issue. The fix was easy. Since the car had unknown mileage I figured the body mount cushions were compressed. I raised the body and they were. I replaced all the cushions and then for added clearance I added 2 shims at each mount. This has no effect on lines or wiring. The customer has been driving the car for a year now and still loves it. He also loves the way the car rides on new cushions.
I know what you mean about the feeling of a fresh Muncie. I have had 4 Speeds by Darrell do some transmissions for me and they are outstanding to drive and they "feel right".
Ken
I have installed one Keisler trans in a 67 coupe. I ran in to the same clearance issue. The fix was easy. Since the car had unknown mileage I figured the body mount cushions were compressed. I raised the body and they were. I replaced all the cushions and then for added clearance I added 2 shims at each mount. This has no effect on lines or wiring. The customer has been driving the car for a year now and still loves it. He also loves the way the car rides on new cushions.
I know what you mean about the feeling of a fresh Muncie. I have had 4 Speeds by Darrell do some transmissions for me and they are outstanding to drive and they "feel right".
Ken
Originally Posted by LouieM
I recently ended my nearly one-year experiment of having a Tremec/Keisler 5-speed manual tranny in my 67 roadster. When I bought this unit, I was looking forward to the advertised advantages of having a numerically lower first gear (3.27 vs. 2.52 in my M20 Muncie) and having an overdrive fifth gear. I did come to appreciate the better acceleration with the stock 327/350 engine, and I really liked the quieter, lower revving 5th gear (70 mph went from 3,000 rpm to 2,000 rpm). I was also hoping for better gas mileage on longer drives.
The main thing I learned to love was the smooth, buttery shifting and the light, easy engagement --- of the original Muncie, not the 5-speed. I became reacquainted with the old-fashioned wonderfulness of up shifting and down shifting after taking the Tremec/Keisler OUT of my midyear two weeks ago and putting back the Muncie that God, Zora and the Road Gods intended should be there.
Some of you guys have done this swap and others are undoubtedly contemplating it, so here is my experience for your edification.
First of all, the Tremec is physically a much larger gearbox than the Muncie, and there is precious little room for it beneath a midyear body. The mechanic who installed it, Dave Herlinger in Mt. View CA (an expert in 53-82 Vettes for 30+ years), was not a happy camper doing his first-ever Tremec install. The biggest problem is that there is very little clearance between the top-side edges of the Tremec and the midyear console/floor. Eventually the foil-backed insulation had to be removed for there to be any chance at all of the 5-speed going in there. I wasn't happy about that, but we forged ahead anyhow. When the tranny was finally installed, there was almost no clearance between it and the console's fiberglass. In order to get any clearance at all, Dave had to wedge a couple of hard rubber spacers (differential snubbers) between the tranny cross member and the floor of the car. Hmmm, not good. We had to go to this extreme even though my 67 appears to have a no-hit body with under 60K total miles, and the floor definitely has not sagged in any way, shape or form. Numerous calls to the Keisler folks yielded no insights into why their tranny was such an impossibly tight fit in my car, though there was much speculation about my originally having been built "too well" at the factory! They suggested shimming up the body on the body mounts --- which would have been insane, and very expensive, since you'd be screwing up body clearances for the radiator support, bumper brackets, brake lines, etc., etc. ad nauseum et infinitum. When the 5-speed was finally jammed in there, there was 1/16-inch clearance above it and the console floor and perhaps 3/16-inch clearance between the new driveshaft and the tranny cross member --- after you bent a parking brake pulley out of the way. Hmmm, again.
On the road, once broken in, I really enjoyed the stouter first gear when taking off. Top gear was wonderfully quiet. No doubt about it, top gear is what it's all about with this swap.
The 5-speed never shifted in an acceptably smooth manner. Compared to a Muncie it is extremely heavy and notchy. As the weeks went by this notchiness got worse, sometimes to the point where I literally couldn't get the shift lever into 1st or 2nd. I would have to retreat to neutral, then try again for 1st or 2nd. I autocrossed the car twice with the 5-speed, and in a minute-long autocross I suppose I lost 3-4 seconds because of the balky shifter. As this condition worsened, it felt like I was using the shift lever to stir a bucket of rocks rather than move from gear to gear. Over the decades I've owned 20 midyears with Muncies or Saginaws. Sometimes they were adjusted well and sometimes not, but ALL shifted more smoothly than the Keisler 5-speed.
Interestingly, another midyear autocrosser mentioned that he heard a loud mechanical "clutch rattle" when I was out on the circuit. I could hear it on the freeway when I was in a lane beside a cement wall/divider and could hear the reflected mechanical noise …… a noise I'd never heard from any other Vette I've owned. I'm guessing this noise is related to the defect in the 5-speed, whatever it is.
After many phone calls and emails to Keisler they eventually sent me a new shift tower, which is the mechanism they add to a Tremec to offset the shifter so it is positioned correctly for a midyear. Unfortunately, nothing changed after this was installed. Evidently the problem lay somewhere deeper in the transmission. At this point I was pretty tired of dealing with this troublesome transmission. I asked Keisler to refund my money for the defective transmission, but they said that in such a case I would have to pay for shipping their defective 5-speed back to them, which I thought was wrong. Instead, they ended up sending me a new 5-speed, and I later returned the defective one to them. In this case, they paid to have the defective tranny shipped to them. This way I avoided spending my money to send their defective unit back to them. It was frustrating and unsatisfying dealing with the Keisler organization, because whoever I talked to couldn't make a decision without running it by the owner, which usually meant adding at least a day (or a weekend, or more) to the process.
Instead of putting the replacement 5-speed in my 67 and maybe having the same problems all over again, I had Dave Herlinger rebuild my factory-original Muncie and put it back in my car. I sold the new Keisler to someone else, after Dave had thoroughly briefed him on my problems with the Keisler tranny and the difficulty installing it. I would have preferred returning the defective tranny to Keisler, and getting a refund, but I didn't want to pay to ship the broken tranny from California to Tennessee. So I had them send me a new tranny, which I then sold and thereby saved on shipping costs.
I picked up my newly re-Muncied 67 at Dave's shop two Saturdays ago. After I turned out his driveway and headed up the street, I shifted into second gear. Even with new synchros, it was the smoothest shift I'd felt in nearly a year -- no notchiness, no balking, just "in like Flynn" -- ahhhhhhhh, YES! The 15-minute drive home was one long celebration of gentle, smooth up shifts and down shifts. Once again, all is right with my Vette.
Strangely enough, the Muncie didn't feel slower than the Keisler, which was unexpected, given the difference in its first-gear ratios (2.52 Muncie vs. 3.27 Keisler). After a few shifts it became obvious why --- the Keisler was so difficult and slow to shift, and it was just so plain old hard to move the shift lever, that any additional quickness from the steeper gearing was negated by its glacial shifter operation. The Muncie shifts so smoothly that it FEELS faster, which is what it's all about on the street. The Muncie will only get smoother over time, as the synchros wear in, in contrast to the Keisler, which got slower and clunkier.
All in all, this was the most painful and unsatisfying aftermarket experience I've ever had since I bought my first midyear in 1968. I ended up spending nearly as much money to install and get rid of that defective Keisler 5-speed as the darned transmission cost initially. Not to mention months and months of having a transmission in my car that significantly detracted from driving pleasure. To top this experience off, I never realized any significant mileage increase on the road. My 67 with the Muncie and 3.36 rear gets up to about 17 mpg on the highway, and the Keisler added only a mile per gallon to this. At that rate I'll have to live 200 years and drive every day in 5th gear to realize enough fuel savings to amortize the cost of the 5-speed.
Others will have had somewhat cheerier experiences with a Keisler-modified Termec. Good on them!
It was sunny today, so I fired up the 67, dropped the top and focused for 25 miles on each smoooooth up shift and smoooooth down shift of my beautiful reborn Muncie, knowing that somewhere out there Zora is smiling. So am I!
Lou
The main thing I learned to love was the smooth, buttery shifting and the light, easy engagement --- of the original Muncie, not the 5-speed. I became reacquainted with the old-fashioned wonderfulness of up shifting and down shifting after taking the Tremec/Keisler OUT of my midyear two weeks ago and putting back the Muncie that God, Zora and the Road Gods intended should be there.
Some of you guys have done this swap and others are undoubtedly contemplating it, so here is my experience for your edification.
First of all, the Tremec is physically a much larger gearbox than the Muncie, and there is precious little room for it beneath a midyear body. The mechanic who installed it, Dave Herlinger in Mt. View CA (an expert in 53-82 Vettes for 30+ years), was not a happy camper doing his first-ever Tremec install. The biggest problem is that there is very little clearance between the top-side edges of the Tremec and the midyear console/floor. Eventually the foil-backed insulation had to be removed for there to be any chance at all of the 5-speed going in there. I wasn't happy about that, but we forged ahead anyhow. When the tranny was finally installed, there was almost no clearance between it and the console's fiberglass. In order to get any clearance at all, Dave had to wedge a couple of hard rubber spacers (differential snubbers) between the tranny cross member and the floor of the car. Hmmm, not good. We had to go to this extreme even though my 67 appears to have a no-hit body with under 60K total miles, and the floor definitely has not sagged in any way, shape or form. Numerous calls to the Keisler folks yielded no insights into why their tranny was such an impossibly tight fit in my car, though there was much speculation about my originally having been built "too well" at the factory! They suggested shimming up the body on the body mounts --- which would have been insane, and very expensive, since you'd be screwing up body clearances for the radiator support, bumper brackets, brake lines, etc., etc. ad nauseum et infinitum. When the 5-speed was finally jammed in there, there was 1/16-inch clearance above it and the console floor and perhaps 3/16-inch clearance between the new driveshaft and the tranny cross member --- after you bent a parking brake pulley out of the way. Hmmm, again.
On the road, once broken in, I really enjoyed the stouter first gear when taking off. Top gear was wonderfully quiet. No doubt about it, top gear is what it's all about with this swap.
The 5-speed never shifted in an acceptably smooth manner. Compared to a Muncie it is extremely heavy and notchy. As the weeks went by this notchiness got worse, sometimes to the point where I literally couldn't get the shift lever into 1st or 2nd. I would have to retreat to neutral, then try again for 1st or 2nd. I autocrossed the car twice with the 5-speed, and in a minute-long autocross I suppose I lost 3-4 seconds because of the balky shifter. As this condition worsened, it felt like I was using the shift lever to stir a bucket of rocks rather than move from gear to gear. Over the decades I've owned 20 midyears with Muncies or Saginaws. Sometimes they were adjusted well and sometimes not, but ALL shifted more smoothly than the Keisler 5-speed.
Interestingly, another midyear autocrosser mentioned that he heard a loud mechanical "clutch rattle" when I was out on the circuit. I could hear it on the freeway when I was in a lane beside a cement wall/divider and could hear the reflected mechanical noise …… a noise I'd never heard from any other Vette I've owned. I'm guessing this noise is related to the defect in the 5-speed, whatever it is.
After many phone calls and emails to Keisler they eventually sent me a new shift tower, which is the mechanism they add to a Tremec to offset the shifter so it is positioned correctly for a midyear. Unfortunately, nothing changed after this was installed. Evidently the problem lay somewhere deeper in the transmission. At this point I was pretty tired of dealing with this troublesome transmission. I asked Keisler to refund my money for the defective transmission, but they said that in such a case I would have to pay for shipping their defective 5-speed back to them, which I thought was wrong. Instead, they ended up sending me a new 5-speed, and I later returned the defective one to them. In this case, they paid to have the defective tranny shipped to them. This way I avoided spending my money to send their defective unit back to them. It was frustrating and unsatisfying dealing with the Keisler organization, because whoever I talked to couldn't make a decision without running it by the owner, which usually meant adding at least a day (or a weekend, or more) to the process.
Instead of putting the replacement 5-speed in my 67 and maybe having the same problems all over again, I had Dave Herlinger rebuild my factory-original Muncie and put it back in my car. I sold the new Keisler to someone else, after Dave had thoroughly briefed him on my problems with the Keisler tranny and the difficulty installing it. I would have preferred returning the defective tranny to Keisler, and getting a refund, but I didn't want to pay to ship the broken tranny from California to Tennessee. So I had them send me a new tranny, which I then sold and thereby saved on shipping costs.
I picked up my newly re-Muncied 67 at Dave's shop two Saturdays ago. After I turned out his driveway and headed up the street, I shifted into second gear. Even with new synchros, it was the smoothest shift I'd felt in nearly a year -- no notchiness, no balking, just "in like Flynn" -- ahhhhhhhh, YES! The 15-minute drive home was one long celebration of gentle, smooth up shifts and down shifts. Once again, all is right with my Vette.
Strangely enough, the Muncie didn't feel slower than the Keisler, which was unexpected, given the difference in its first-gear ratios (2.52 Muncie vs. 3.27 Keisler). After a few shifts it became obvious why --- the Keisler was so difficult and slow to shift, and it was just so plain old hard to move the shift lever, that any additional quickness from the steeper gearing was negated by its glacial shifter operation. The Muncie shifts so smoothly that it FEELS faster, which is what it's all about on the street. The Muncie will only get smoother over time, as the synchros wear in, in contrast to the Keisler, which got slower and clunkier.
All in all, this was the most painful and unsatisfying aftermarket experience I've ever had since I bought my first midyear in 1968. I ended up spending nearly as much money to install and get rid of that defective Keisler 5-speed as the darned transmission cost initially. Not to mention months and months of having a transmission in my car that significantly detracted from driving pleasure. To top this experience off, I never realized any significant mileage increase on the road. My 67 with the Muncie and 3.36 rear gets up to about 17 mpg on the highway, and the Keisler added only a mile per gallon to this. At that rate I'll have to live 200 years and drive every day in 5th gear to realize enough fuel savings to amortize the cost of the 5-speed.
Others will have had somewhat cheerier experiences with a Keisler-modified Termec. Good on them!
It was sunny today, so I fired up the 67, dropped the top and focused for 25 miles on each smoooooth up shift and smoooooth down shift of my beautiful reborn Muncie, knowing that somewhere out there Zora is smiling. So am I!
Lou
02-14-2006, 11:52 AM
#7
Race Director
Member Since: Nov 2000
Location: Beverly Hills (Pine Ridge) Florida
Posts: 10,152
Received 525 Likes
on
374 Posts
Well thought out and written post!
It is surprising how many of us (myself included) get caught up in the "Newer is Better" syndrome.
I also went with an OD trans in my 62, and am not sorry, but there are downsides that have to be considered. In my case, the OD trans is a 4 speed that is the same size as a Muncie (but has a larger "girth" and is about 20 pounds heavier), with the same input and outputs. It did make changeover a lot simplier, and would fit in a C2 with minimum issues. The gear spread is much broader, and cruising in 4th (OD) is great. For me, that is what I was looking for. As for better fuel economy, I doubt that I will see that much improvement, since I am now running lower than the cam and intake manifold curves suggest I should. I am reluctant to change them, so be it. 1st gear is a stump puller, and was not really needed with my 3.55 rear gear and 355 CID engine combo. Also, since the OD trans has a much broader spread between 1st and 2nd (like shifting your wide ratio Muncie from 1st to 3rd), downshifting into 1st is a "double clutch" affair unless almost to a stop. But the up shifting is just like a Muncie, smooth with no clitches, even though it is a Mopar (New Process) designed trans - A-833 derivitive. I guess the Hurst shifter helps!
Bottom line is I can switch back to my Muncie (I know, it was not stock in 62 either), anytime I want. But for now, I am enjoying this trans quite a bit.
Plasticman
It is surprising how many of us (myself included) get caught up in the "Newer is Better" syndrome.
I also went with an OD trans in my 62, and am not sorry, but there are downsides that have to be considered. In my case, the OD trans is a 4 speed that is the same size as a Muncie (but has a larger "girth" and is about 20 pounds heavier), with the same input and outputs. It did make changeover a lot simplier, and would fit in a C2 with minimum issues. The gear spread is much broader, and cruising in 4th (OD) is great. For me, that is what I was looking for. As for better fuel economy, I doubt that I will see that much improvement, since I am now running lower than the cam and intake manifold curves suggest I should. I am reluctant to change them, so be it. 1st gear is a stump puller, and was not really needed with my 3.55 rear gear and 355 CID engine combo. Also, since the OD trans has a much broader spread between 1st and 2nd (like shifting your wide ratio Muncie from 1st to 3rd), downshifting into 1st is a "double clutch" affair unless almost to a stop. But the up shifting is just like a Muncie, smooth with no clitches, even though it is a Mopar (New Process) designed trans - A-833 derivitive. I guess the Hurst shifter helps!
Bottom line is I can switch back to my Muncie (I know, it was not stock in 62 either), anytime I want. But for now, I am enjoying this trans quite a bit.
Plasticman
02-14-2006, 11:58 AM
#8
Melting Slicks
like you said it IS tight. , and the old muncie did shift nice. on the other hand my 3:90 rear really likes the OD. i could live with out the super low first gear but oh well. my tremek is starting to get smoother after about 400 miles on it. i have thought of putting on a longer shifter ( ie. hurst stick ) to get a little more leverage as the keisler setup dosent aford you a lot of mechanical advantage. all in all though, i am happy with my switch. it has allowed me to take it out on the highway which i really couldn't do before because grandmas in PT Cruisers where blowing by me at 80.
02-14-2006, 12:28 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Watkinsville, GA and Glen Cove, NY
Posts: 5,790
Received 855 Likes
on
626 Posts
I can't believe I saw this post right after my 5 speed Muncie post. The 5 speed overdrive Muncie is coming and if what I saw in that shop resembles the quality of this new Muncie, all will be well.
Bill VO
Bill VO
02-14-2006, 12:35 PM
#10
Melting Slicks
So are you going to be their Beta tester????
At least with the Keisler setup it is a Tremec which is a tried and true tranny with a lot of field experience.
I would be very leery of that new 5 speed until it has been out for a while!
02-14-2006, 01:18 PM
#11
Race Director
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Marks69BB
So are you going to be their Beta tester????
At least with the Keisler setup it is a Tremec which is a tried and true tranny with a lot of field experience.
I would be very leery of that new 5 speed until it has been out for a while!
02-14-2006, 01:21 PM
#12
Race Director
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 69ttop502
I can't believe I saw this post right after my 5 speed Muncie post. The 5 speed overdrive Muncie is coming and if what I saw in that shop resembles the quality of this new Muncie, all will be well.
Bill VO
Bill VO
02-14-2006, 01:38 PM
#13
Safety Car
Member Since: Nov 2000
Location: Clinton Township MI
Posts: 4,750
Received 119 Likes
on
98 Posts
Cruise-In III Veteran
Louie,
Very insightul post. Appreciate your candidness here. This swap is not without its pains and for you, you had enough. I haven't plunged in that direction but like many here the idea of cruising at 70 + mph with R's of 2K to 2.2K is very appealing.
I guess what it boils down to is how you use the car now and your intentions down the road. This swap still has a lot of appeal to me but the recent posts about a 5 speed muncie does have my ear...certainly not going to be the newbie on that one. I'll just sit on the sidelines for now and enjoy my M20.
Thanks again and good luck driven' her!
Regards,
Jim
Very insightul post. Appreciate your candidness here. This swap is not without its pains and for you, you had enough. I haven't plunged in that direction but like many here the idea of cruising at 70 + mph with R's of 2K to 2.2K is very appealing.
I guess what it boils down to is how you use the car now and your intentions down the road. This swap still has a lot of appeal to me but the recent posts about a 5 speed muncie does have my ear...certainly not going to be the newbie on that one. I'll just sit on the sidelines for now and enjoy my M20.
Thanks again and good luck driven' her!
Regards,
Jim
02-14-2006, 02:51 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by Marks69BB
So are you going to be their Beta tester????
At least with the Keisler setup it is a Tremec which is a tried and true tranny with a lot of field experience.
I would be very leery of that new 5 speed until it has been out for a while!
Last edited by JohnFromVentura; 02-15-2006 at 02:35 AM.
02-14-2006, 05:15 PM
#15
Race Director
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JohnFromVentura
As an experienced Keisler 5 speed “C1 Beta tester” I find this amusing! For 5 months they sent me wrong or bad parts. It started with a 3" diameter drive shaft and ended with a Tremec with a wrong position shifter. I sent it all back finally after having my car on a lift for 5 prime months. The bottom line is that they “DO USE their customers as Beta Sites. I got a lot of smooth talk out of their marketing team but in the end they still thought that C1's came with front and rear shift locations and so they would “ask new customers which position they had”??? Come on...these guys are experts??? This applies to C1's only.... C2's are easier. Also, the Keisler 2'nd cover back interfered with my 57's floor board big time (more than a couple of extra cushions/shims). If someone has successfully installed one them self without cutting or modifying a C1 body I would very interested. I but my T10 back in until my wounds heal and then it will be a Richmond 5 speed that fits easily.
It all adds to the aggravation.
02-14-2006, 05:36 PM
#16
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Watkinsville, GA and Glen Cove, NY
Posts: 5,790
Received 855 Likes
on
626 Posts
No Mark I am not going to be a beta tester. Just merely passing along some information that some might find exciting , as much as I do. And no I don't believe I even mentioned the word Tremec in my post. I know nothing about the Tremec other than what I have learned here, and I know there are many happy people with it and Keisler. I do like the idea of a true bolt in and if this thing is as strong as the new M22 transmissions out there produced by these folks then it will be another great alternative. So here is a rolleyes back at you.
Last edited by 69ttop502; 02-14-2006 at 05:40 PM.
02-14-2006, 05:45 PM
#17
Advanced
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for John from V. I read about the Keisler TKO-600 5 speeds on this forum and ordered one in late december of 2005 for my 1962. It took about 3 weeks to arrive. It took me about 4 hours by myself to install. I cut nothing, including the ashtray pocket. The install was pretty simple, I had never seen one of these transmissions before, BUT I did it my way. I took along look at Keislers instructions and said No Way. They said to remove or disconnect pretty much everything on the engine. So I took it one step further and removed the front mount frame pieces, 8 bolts, and simpley moved the engine forward 5 inches. Then the trans can be installed in a normal manor. I could not use their trans mount with the poly-u mount, supplied by them. It pushed the trans 1/2 " to the left. So I used the stock mount with the cushion and bracket removed and drilled two holes in it. Because I have and will drag race this car, I have always had the trans mount lowered to reduce driveshaft angles.It has worked fine for 40 years. Any way, I spaced the front holes on the trans cross member down .690" and the rear holes down .860". Every fit without cutting. The only problem I had was they shipped me a rear facing offset shifter stub which put 8" hurst handle too far rearward. They promptly shipped me a straight up one that fit perfectly. It will be about 2 months before I will get to drive it between the weather here in NJ and finishing up on the installation of new 395 C.I. sbc---DForce---BTW I have never worked in the automobile field, Just a long time corvette hot rodder
02-14-2006, 08:14 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by DForce
ordered one in late december of 2005 for my 1962. It took about 3 weeks to arrive. It took me about 4 hours by myself to install. I cut nothing, including the ashtray pocket. The install was pretty simple, I had never seen one of these transmissions before, BUT I did it my way. I took along look at Keislers instructions and said No Way. They said to remove or disconnect pretty much everything on the engine. So I took it one step further and removed the front mount frame pieces, 8 bolts, and simpley moved the engine forward 5 inches. Then the trans can be installed in a normal manor. I could not use their trans mount with the poly-u mount, supplied by them. It pushed the trans 1/2 " to the left. So I used the stock mount with the cushion and bracket removed and drilled two holes in it. Because I have and will drag race this car, I have always had the trans mount lowered to reduce driveshaft angles.It has worked fine for 40 years. Any way, I spaced the front holes on the trans cross member down .690" and the rear holes down .860". Every fit without cutting. The only problem I had was they shipped me a rear facing offset shifter stub which put 8" hurst handle too far rearward. They promptly shipped me a straight up one that fit perfectly. It will be about 2 months before I will get to drive it between the weather here in NJ and finishing up on the installation of new 395 C.I. sbc---DForce---BTW I have never worked in the automobile field, Just a long time corvette hot rodder
Regards, John
Last edited by JohnFromVentura; 02-14-2006 at 08:21 PM.
02-14-2006, 10:26 PM
#19
Burning Brakes
Thanks for the update Louie! I too have been "lurking around" trying to decide to pull my Muncie and go for the 5 speed Keisler set up - but, I also have a friend that had numerous problems and 8 months of "headaches". I will live with my 66 L79 M21 and 3.70's on the freeway for now and see how the new Muncie 5 speed goes when it comes out. I just put the motor back in for the 2nd time (long story the first time we rebuilt it!) and now is time to drive it!
Ron
I too have been "lurking around" trying to decide to pull my Muncie and go for the 5 speed Keisler set up - but, I also have a friend that had numerous problems and 8 months of "headaches". I will live with my 66 L79 M21 and 3.70's on the freeway for now and see how the new Muncie 5 speed goes when it comes out. I just put the motor back in for the 2nd time (long story the first time we rebuilt it!) and now is time to drive it! Ron
02-14-2006, 11:05 PM
#20
Race Director
Member Since: Nov 2000
Location: Beverly Hills (Pine Ridge) Florida
Posts: 10,152
Received 525 Likes
on
374 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnFromVentura
DForce thanks for the reply on this. It's always good to correspond with someone who also has had their hands on the hardware. I agree that on a C1 if you dropped the engine .69 in the front and lowered the rear trans mount .86 it (Tremec) would fit. Cutting the ashtray was something I decided to live with. I do have two questions: When you dropped the front engine straddle mount .69 down how close did the harmonic balancer come to your 3rd arm (if you still have one)? When you lowered the rear trans mount down .86 was the tail shaft close to or lying on the X member?
Regards, John
Regards, John
If I am reading Dforce's post correctly, it looks like he lowered the rear trans mount only (front holes by .69" and the rear holes by .86"). That would not of affected the balancer and 3rd arm clearance.
Plasticman