When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think that ball bearing would tolerate slight misalignment better than a roller bearing. On purpose.
I think the Tremec transmissions use a roller front bearing, which is why the concentricity of the input shaft and crankshaft pilot are more critical; we used the Tremec T56 in the Viper, and you couldn't grab and "wobble" the end of the input shaft like you can on a T-10/Muncie/Saginaw transmission.
I think the Tremec transmissions use a roller front bearing, which is why the concentricity of the input shaft and crankshaft pilot are more critical; we used the Tremec T56 in the Viper, and you couldn't grab and "wobble" the end of the input shaft like you can on a T-10/Muncie/Saginaw transmission.
To take a little further what I was getting at, I believe GM used the ballbearing on the transmission inputs shafts in anticipation of possibly a wide variation in their build process of the transmission relationship to the crankshaft.
The machining processes AND the ball bearing design would have been cheaper (cost save) than the latter method/design.
There was no need for precision machining or expensive bearings in the '60's. The clutches (many of them) would last 40-80K miles and when you replaced that, you stuck in a $.50 oilite bushing and both would last for the rest of the service life of the vehicle which typically was around 100k miles.
No reason that cheap little bushing isn't just as good today as it was back then as long as you retain the original component part design.
ball bearings have been used by pontiac in manual and dual range hydra matic applications since the late 30's. and also by GMC. and in each case a bushing is also available.
If you have ever had to replace a hydra matic, to avaid having to do it again, you will want to install a bushing.