Expert Transmission Help Needed
#1
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Expert Transmission Help Needed
Help:
I recently became the proud owner of a 1966 Big Block Roadster, NOM and now I find non original transmission. Now here is the thing. The front bearing retainer where the T/O bearing slides has a groove from heavy wear. (it is aluminum and that should have been my 1st tip off) I had an old S T10 that was trashed and thought I will just take the bearing retainer off of it, no big deal. Well it seems that the S T10 (iron) one is much larger in the bearing area. I started digging farther and the trans has T 10 D1 on the side above the fill plug. After some internet research it seems that this was a 1 year only trans in 1963 for 360 hp Corvette and full size 409 cars. The trans is all aluminum, no cast iron side cover or bearing retainer and as I mentioned the input bearing is much smaller in size that either the S T10 or the Muncie. Now on the Chevelle Forum there is a thread about this and it says that this is the best T 10 made, supposedly stronger than the S T 10. (oh yeah, it does not have the iron mid plate, that is aluminum also) The car is getting a new engine, BB 402, mild comp cam, 10:1 compression, intake, Holley, guessing around 400HP.
So now the questions:
Does anyone make a speedie sleeve to repair this like they do for balance dampers?
Is this trans really any good, or is it like the older weaker ones?
Would I be better off with a Muncie and sell this trans?
Because of its apparent rarity, is it worth good money to a restorer looking for a 1 year only trans for a 409 or 1963 Corvette? (I would like to put a 5 speed in if this would fund it)
Is this really as rare as it appears to be?
Thanks in advance for the help and input.
I recently became the proud owner of a 1966 Big Block Roadster, NOM and now I find non original transmission. Now here is the thing. The front bearing retainer where the T/O bearing slides has a groove from heavy wear. (it is aluminum and that should have been my 1st tip off) I had an old S T10 that was trashed and thought I will just take the bearing retainer off of it, no big deal. Well it seems that the S T10 (iron) one is much larger in the bearing area. I started digging farther and the trans has T 10 D1 on the side above the fill plug. After some internet research it seems that this was a 1 year only trans in 1963 for 360 hp Corvette and full size 409 cars. The trans is all aluminum, no cast iron side cover or bearing retainer and as I mentioned the input bearing is much smaller in size that either the S T10 or the Muncie. Now on the Chevelle Forum there is a thread about this and it says that this is the best T 10 made, supposedly stronger than the S T 10. (oh yeah, it does not have the iron mid plate, that is aluminum also) The car is getting a new engine, BB 402, mild comp cam, 10:1 compression, intake, Holley, guessing around 400HP.
So now the questions:
Does anyone make a speedie sleeve to repair this like they do for balance dampers?
Is this trans really any good, or is it like the older weaker ones?
Would I be better off with a Muncie and sell this trans?
Because of its apparent rarity, is it worth good money to a restorer looking for a 1 year only trans for a 409 or 1963 Corvette? (I would like to put a 5 speed in if this would fund it)
Is this really as rare as it appears to be?
Thanks in advance for the help and input.
#2
Melting Slicks
Sounds like you have an old T10 from a 1963. That was the only year that used the small front bearing and retainer. If the OD of that retainer is the same as the hole in the bell housing, that means the housing is also from a 63.
More than likely, the hole in the bell housing is the larger size for 64 and later Muncies. If not, you should also replace the bell housing with a later one.
The front bearing retainer should fit the hole in the bell housing for proper transmission alignment.
More than likely, the hole in the bell housing is the larger size for 64 and later Muncies. If not, you should also replace the bell housing with a later one.
The front bearing retainer should fit the hole in the bell housing for proper transmission alignment.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-21-2018)
#3
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Your right
Sounds like you have an old T10 from a 1963. That was the only year that used the small front bearing and retainer. If the OD of that retainer is the same as the hole in the bell housing, that means the housing is also from a 63.
More than likely, the hole in the bell housing is the larger size for 64 and later Muncies. If not, you should also replace the bell housing with a later one.
The front bearing retainer should fit the hole in the bell housing for proper transmission alignment.
More than likely, the hole in the bell housing is the larger size for 64 and later Muncies. If not, you should also replace the bell housing with a later one.
The front bearing retainer should fit the hole in the bell housing for proper transmission alignment.
#4
Melting Slicks
I would think that the old T10 would be worth at least as much in trade for a proper muncie. The shifter would be different and so would the front yoke of the drive shaft. The front yoke is rare.
#6
Melting Slicks
Other than the number of internal splines, the yokes are about the same.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-21-2018)
#7
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Thanks
If the transmission is a 63, (and it must be) then it will have a coarse spline output shaft which is basically a 63 only spline count. For 64 and later (with one exception) all 64 and later will have a fine spline output shaft.
Other than the number of internal splines, the yokes are about the same.
Other than the number of internal splines, the yokes are about the same.
#9
Le Mans Master
I really know nothing about these, but in case you may find them useful...
Muncie 4 speed M20 - Durham NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...649229821.html
Muncie-M-22 4-speed - Goldsboro NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...624701993.html
Muncie M21 Close Ratio 4 Speed Transmission - Benson NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...638951627.html
GUSTO
Muncie 4 speed M20 - Durham NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...649229821.html
Muncie-M-22 4-speed - Goldsboro NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...624701993.html
Muncie M21 Close Ratio 4 Speed Transmission - Benson NC
https://raleigh.craigslist.org/pts/d...638951627.html
GUSTO
Last edited by GUSTO14; 07-21-2018 at 11:43 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-21-2018)
#10
Race Director
Member Since: Apr 2015
Location: Fresno California
Posts: 17,505
Received 3,443 Likes
on
2,113 Posts
An aluminum T-10 is in all cases weaker than a Muncie transmission. The strong T-10's are the later ST-10's with the cast iron 904 case and high nickel gears. These are 60% stronger than the old style aluminum T-10's. If I were in your shoes, I'd upgrade to a '66-up Muncie transmission.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-22-2018)
#11
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,852
Received 3,772 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
Maybe John Hinkley can add to this if he chimes in.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-22-2018)
#12
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
I got her out today
The following users liked this post:
GUSTO14 (07-22-2018)
#13
Safety Car
Member Since: Apr 2000
Location: New York New York
Posts: 4,819
Received 1,126 Likes
on
553 Posts
2023 C2 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Unmodified
My son had the same issue with his 64. He had a 63 T-10 with the aluminum bearing retainer and it was extremely worn. He also had a 64 bell with the larger hole.
I called Larry at D & L transmissions and he sent me a cast iron retainer that fit the T-10 and had the larger diameter for the bell. Give him a call.
What were the engineers thinking making that retainer out of aluminum is beyond me.
Joe
I called Larry at D & L transmissions and he sent me a cast iron retainer that fit the T-10 and had the larger diameter for the bell. Give him a call.
What were the engineers thinking making that retainer out of aluminum is beyond me.
Joe
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-23-2018)
#14
Race Director
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Mustang OK
Posts: 13,852
Received 3,772 Likes
on
1,674 Posts
2023 C1 of the Year Finalist - Modified
2015 C1 of the Year Finalist
My son had the same issue with his 64. He had a 63 T-10 with the aluminum bearing retainer and it was extremely worn. He also had a 64 bell with the larger hole.
I called Larry at D & L transmissions and he sent me a cast iron retainer that fit the T-10 and had the larger diameter for the bell. Give him a call.
What were the engineers thinking making that retainer out of aluminum is beyond me.
Joe
I called Larry at D & L transmissions and he sent me a cast iron retainer that fit the T-10 and had the larger diameter for the bell. Give him a call.
What were the engineers thinking making that retainer out of aluminum is beyond me.
Joe
Now, just for added information.
For those folks who may have a 63 4sp (with the small front bearing retainer, alum or iron), and it is bolted to a 64-later (or 62-earlier) bell housing with the larger hole, the front bearing retainer on the old 55-62 3spd trannys is a direct fit to your 63 4sp. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 63 Chevys (pass car, Corvette, whatever) for some dumbazz reason got a bell housing (421) with the smaller hole and the smaller front bearing retainer on the transmission. EXCEPT, EXCEPT, EXCEPT the 63 409 cars!!!! The 63 full size 409 cars still had the open bottom alum bell housing with the bigger hole (which was last used in 62 on everything else) and the 63 4spds in 409 cars got the front bearing retainer that was the same as 55-62 3sp trannys. Bet ya didn't know that!
Last edited by DZAUTO; 07-23-2018 at 01:24 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-23-2018)
#16
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Muncie
An aluminum T-10 is in all cases weaker than a Muncie transmission. The strong T-10's are the later ST-10's with the cast iron 904 case and high nickel gears. These are 60% stronger than the old style aluminum T-10's. If I were in your shoes, I'd upgrade to a '66-up Muncie transmission.
#17
Le Mans Master
GUSTO
The following users liked this post:
Vette5311 (07-23-2018)
#19
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,072
Received 1,729 Likes
on
811 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
DUH!
Now, just for added information.
For those folks who may have a 63 4sp (with the small front bearing retainer, alum or iron), and it is bolted to a 64-later (or 62-earlier) bell housing with the larger hole, the front bearing retainer on the old 55-62 3spd trannys is a direct fit to your 63 4sp. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 63 Chevys (pass car, Corvette, whatever) for some dumbazz reason got a bell housing (421) with the smaller hole and the smaller front bearing retainer on the transmission. EXCEPT, EXCEPT, EXCEPT the 63 409 cars!!!! The 63 full size 409 cars still had the open bottom alum bell housing with the bigger hole (which was last used in 62 on everything else) and the 63 4spds in 409 cars got the front bearing retainer that was the same as 55-62 3sp trannys. Bet ya didn't know that!
Now, just for added information.
For those folks who may have a 63 4sp (with the small front bearing retainer, alum or iron), and it is bolted to a 64-later (or 62-earlier) bell housing with the larger hole, the front bearing retainer on the old 55-62 3spd trannys is a direct fit to your 63 4sp. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 63 Chevys (pass car, Corvette, whatever) for some dumbazz reason got a bell housing (421) with the smaller hole and the smaller front bearing retainer on the transmission. EXCEPT, EXCEPT, EXCEPT the 63 409 cars!!!! The 63 full size 409 cars still had the open bottom alum bell housing with the bigger hole (which was last used in 62 on everything else) and the 63 4spds in 409 cars got the front bearing retainer that was the same as 55-62 3sp trannys. Bet ya didn't know that!
Last edited by Dan Hampton; 07-23-2018 at 09:42 PM.