Muncie close ratio vs wide
#21
Le Mans Master
maybe he has a really late 65 and they ran out of trannys so he got a 66 unit....
#22
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Oklahoma City Oklahoma
Posts: 5,975
Received 979 Likes
on
491 Posts
Speaking 'o fun with Muncies....Whilst in the middle of my original wide-ratio M20 I could not get the loaded cluster gear to fit into the case. That prompted my repeated disassembly/assembly of the 128 uncaged needle bearings and the 6 spacer rings that were supplied with the kit from D&L Transmissions (recommended by Tom Parsons, thanks Tom). I called Larry and told him of my dilemma and informed him that only 4 spacer rings were found from the assortment of original parts. His response was "You must have a '66. That was the only year that used the spacer tube as a bearing surface and only four rings.". It fits better now....
Ray
Ray
Last edited by rayvaflav; 03-23-2010 at 06:28 PM. Reason: speedy waffles
#23
Le Mans Master
im' not here to cause any friction snake, all im doin is posting some results from different web sites and their info....if you guys want to claim they made a close m-20 that's fine with me, if tom says someone has a 26 spline tranny before other knowledge says that spline was released later, then i say amen!!.....because again, wtfdik??...evidentaly not much.....PEACE and good luck........
When Tom posted - "In the beginning (63) when the Muncie replaced the Borg-Warner T-10, the 4sp transmission option was M20. Period. Depending on engine/rear gear ratio, the car was delivered with either a wide ratio or close ratio Muncie. The option was still M20 for the 4sp.", it wasn't a "claim", it's a fact supported by a countless number of GM documents and actual examples.
Jim
#24
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Washington Michigan
Posts: 38,899
Received 1,856 Likes
on
1,099 Posts
OK, try this - from my "Tech Bench" column in the August '08 issue of "Corvette Enthusiast" magazine.
Reader’s Question: I have a ’62 327/340hp Corvette I bought eight years ago with what I believe to be its original T-10 4-speed based on casting dates, and it has a 2.20:1 first gear based on comparing input to output shaft revolutions when it was rebuilt last year, which makes it a close-ratio transmission. A fellow Corvette club member says that’s not possible – he says the M-21 close-ratio 4-speed wasn’t available until 1966, after the T-10 was replaced by the Muncie. Isn’t it true that close-ratio 4-speeds were available before 1966?
Response: Yes, that’s correct – the very first Corvette 4-speed in 1957 was a close-ratio transmission with a 2.20:1 first gear, and ALL Corvette 4-speeds were close-ratio through 1961; the wide-ratio 4-speed didn’t appear until 1962.
Semantics are involved here as well; although both close- and wide-ratio transmissions were available beginning in 1962, the M-21 OPTION (RPO M21) for the close-ratio version didn’t appear on the order blank as a customer choice until 1966. That was the first year the customer could make the choice between wide and close-ratio transmissions (on some engines); prior to that, the 4-speed option was always M-20, and the engine selection made the ratio choice, not the customer – here’s the story on 4-speed transmission availability.
1957-1961: All 4-speeds were the Borg-Warner T-10, and all were close-ratio with a 2.20:1 first gear. 1957-1960 transmissions had a cast iron main case and an aluminum tailhousing, and the main case changed to aluminum in 1961.
1962-mid-1963: 250hp and 300hp engines got the new wide-ratio T-10, and the 340hp and 360hp engines got the close-ratio version.
Mid-1963 to end of 1963: The T-10 was replaced by the new Muncie 4-speed as a running change during the year, with the small front bearing retainer; both the main case and the tailhousing were aluminum. 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 340hp and 360hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1964: The Muncie bearing retainer diameter was increased, and 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 365hp and 375hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1965: 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 350hp, 365hp, 375hp, and 396/425hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1966: 300hp only available with the wide-ratio, customer could choose wide or close-ratio with the 350hp and 390hp engines, and the 427/425hp engine got the close-ratio version.
1967: 300hp only available with the wide-ratio, customer could choose wide or close-ratio with the 350/390/400hp engines, 435hp got the close-ratio version.
Summary: Although the “M-21” OPTION didn’t appear on the order blank until 1966, Corvette 4-speeds were available with the close-ratio gearset right from the beginning in 1957.
Reader’s Question: I have a ’62 327/340hp Corvette I bought eight years ago with what I believe to be its original T-10 4-speed based on casting dates, and it has a 2.20:1 first gear based on comparing input to output shaft revolutions when it was rebuilt last year, which makes it a close-ratio transmission. A fellow Corvette club member says that’s not possible – he says the M-21 close-ratio 4-speed wasn’t available until 1966, after the T-10 was replaced by the Muncie. Isn’t it true that close-ratio 4-speeds were available before 1966?
Response: Yes, that’s correct – the very first Corvette 4-speed in 1957 was a close-ratio transmission with a 2.20:1 first gear, and ALL Corvette 4-speeds were close-ratio through 1961; the wide-ratio 4-speed didn’t appear until 1962.
Semantics are involved here as well; although both close- and wide-ratio transmissions were available beginning in 1962, the M-21 OPTION (RPO M21) for the close-ratio version didn’t appear on the order blank as a customer choice until 1966. That was the first year the customer could make the choice between wide and close-ratio transmissions (on some engines); prior to that, the 4-speed option was always M-20, and the engine selection made the ratio choice, not the customer – here’s the story on 4-speed transmission availability.
1957-1961: All 4-speeds were the Borg-Warner T-10, and all were close-ratio with a 2.20:1 first gear. 1957-1960 transmissions had a cast iron main case and an aluminum tailhousing, and the main case changed to aluminum in 1961.
1962-mid-1963: 250hp and 300hp engines got the new wide-ratio T-10, and the 340hp and 360hp engines got the close-ratio version.
Mid-1963 to end of 1963: The T-10 was replaced by the new Muncie 4-speed as a running change during the year, with the small front bearing retainer; both the main case and the tailhousing were aluminum. 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 340hp and 360hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1964: The Muncie bearing retainer diameter was increased, and 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 365hp and 375hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1965: 250hp and 300hp engines got the wide-ratio version, and the 350hp, 365hp, 375hp, and 396/425hp engines got the close-ratio version.
1966: 300hp only available with the wide-ratio, customer could choose wide or close-ratio with the 350hp and 390hp engines, and the 427/425hp engine got the close-ratio version.
1967: 300hp only available with the wide-ratio, customer could choose wide or close-ratio with the 350/390/400hp engines, 435hp got the close-ratio version.
Summary: Although the “M-21” OPTION didn’t appear on the order blank until 1966, Corvette 4-speeds were available with the close-ratio gearset right from the beginning in 1957.
#27
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
'Cause I built it that way for him!
Gene's 65 FI car originally had a close ratio Muncie, and he wanted to have a wide ratio (for the better response from a stop). Changing ANY Muncie from wide to close ratio or vice versa, requires changing BOTH the input and cluster gears. At the time, a 71-74 input cluster was available for an excellent price. BUT, the 63-65 cases use a 7/8in cluster shaft and the 66-74 cases use a 1in cluster shaft. So, I sent the 65 case to Larry Fischer and had him bore it out for a 1in shaft. Upon return of the case, I built Gene's matching number Muncie with the wide ratio, 26 spline input and matching cluster gears.
And that's how it was done.
Now, what is the whole point to all of this???????????
You CANNOT judge a book by it's cover, nor can you judge the guts of a Muncie by its casting number/stamped code. Some of us who have been building Muncies, since Moses brought down the Ten Commandants, have seen and done MANY things to them. You don't hear it mentioned much anymore, but in years past, it was common to upgrade a 63-65 Muncie with a 66-74 cluster, gear gear/shaft/input.
Now that the Auto Gear Muncies, Super cases and gears are available, there is not much point in spending a lot of money on an old worn out Muncie-----------------------UNLESS IT'S AN ORIGINAL NUMBERS MATCHING TRANNY. If that is the case, then it is worth almost any expense to restore the tranny back to new or excellent serviceable condition. Even if the case has severely enlarged holes for the cluster gear shaft or cracked or broken/missing mounting ears. I have several junk Muncie cases which I keep specifically for cutting off an ear and having it welded to a matching number Muncie case with a missing ear so that it can be saved.
Tom Parsons
#28
Sounds like some good info being passed around, this thread was not a horse beater after all!
You guys love answering these questions as much as we enjoy learning something new
You guys love answering these questions as much as we enjoy learning something new
#29
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
Welllllllllllllllllllll, except for the tiny handfull of 65 M22s.
I personally have never had a 65 M22 on the workbench. But, all the authorative information about them indicates they had a "modified" casting number and a 1in cluster shaft/gear.
Also, there seems to be debate on their actual designation. The majority of knowledgeable people have indicated that the 65 M22s were NOT designated as an M22, but simply as a HEAVY DUTY Muncie.
John Z may be able to expand on this a little more.
Tom Parsons
#30
Le Mans Master
sooo......you modified the tranny, and the bold ORIGINAL was meant to throw us off.....trick questions do not count....and the tranny is no longer ORIGINAL......bwtfdik??.....
#31
Pro
YEP!
Welllllllllllllllllllll, except for the tiny handfull of 65 M22s.
I personally have never had a 65 M22 on the workbench. But, all the authorative information about them indicates they had a "modified" casting number and a 1in cluster shaft/gear.
Also, there seems to be debate on their actual designation. The majority of knowledgeable people have indicated that the 65 M22s were NOT designated as an M22, but simply as a HEAVY DUTY Muncie.
John Z may be able to expand on this a little more....
Welllllllllllllllllllll, except for the tiny handfull of 65 M22s.
I personally have never had a 65 M22 on the workbench. But, all the authorative information about them indicates they had a "modified" casting number and a 1in cluster shaft/gear.
Also, there seems to be debate on their actual designation. The majority of knowledgeable people have indicated that the 65 M22s were NOT designated as an M22, but simply as a HEAVY DUTY Muncie.
John Z may be able to expand on this a little more....
Also, same appendix features that black/black L78 tanker that was ordered and delivered to Gorries Chevrolet in Toronto, Ontario, in mid-June '65. The Canadian paperwork shows M20 on the dealer order form and M22 on the delivery form. This car took 86 days from order to delivery.
Last edited by midstyle; 03-22-2010 at 04:11 PM.
#32
Well, now at least I don't have to buy a new lawn mower, but do need some landfill....
And after rereading this entire thread at least three times, I'm pretty sure I learned something.....Thanks......
Last edited by Formula Outlaw; 03-23-2010 at 10:25 AM.
#33
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Greenville, Indiana
Posts: 26,118
Received 1,843 Likes
on
1,398 Posts
Prior to all this order form, alpha/numerical identification nonsense, we used to call them four speeds, then close ratio/ wide ratio when there became two different gearset ratios. When the "rock crusher" came along, that's what we called it. Rock crusher! There was NO confusion then about what was what!
Then came the NCRS and things changed! Then came the internet and many are confused!
Then came the NCRS and things changed! Then came the internet and many are confused!
#34
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
#35
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
Prior to all this order form, alpha/numerical identification nonsense, we used to call them four speeds, then close ratio/ wide ratio when there became two different gearset ratios. When the "rock crusher" came along, that's what we called it. Rock crusher! There was NO confusion then about what was what!
Then came the NCRS and things changed! Then came the internet and many are confused!
Then came the NCRS and things changed! Then came the internet and many are confused!
You catch on REAL quick!
And yes, I too grew up knowing that the M22, Heavy Duty Muncie, whatever you wish to designate it, was most commonly referred to by ALLLLLLLLLLLLL the car guys as the Rock crusher. But today I seldom use that term because, as you say, people are now confused.
For example, who the heck knows what a babbit beater is today??? Or a stove bolt? Or a Flatty? Or a Columbia butt? Common terms when I was becoming car knowledgeable back in the 50s.
Tom Parsons
#36
Le Mans Master
#37
Drifting
#38
Team Owner
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: Greenville, Indiana
Posts: 26,118
Received 1,843 Likes
on
1,398 Posts
PS. I know what all those terms mean and I know what a Columbia axle is but I never heard it referred to as "butt".
#39
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
Tom Parsons
#40
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,846
Received 3,766 Likes
on
1,669 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
Did you ever have a babbit beater start knocking out in the middle of nowhere, take the pan off, scrape a little babbit out with a pocket knife, then cut a piece off your leather belt and put it in there and then drive on?
PS. I know what all those terms mean and I know what a Columbia axle is but I never heard it referred to as "butt".
PS. I know what all those terms mean and I know what a Columbia axle is but I never heard it referred to as "butt".
Oh ya, but I'm still driving the 51 EVERY DAY-----------------5 engines later!
When and where I grew up, Columbia butt was the term----------------sounded swell, Columbia rear was nowhereville, man! C'mon daddyo, get with it!
Tom Parsons
Tom Parsons