We ended up coming to the same conclusion. Every time we counted teeth and eyeballed these things...they look the same. New ring gear and new starter drive should fix this. All the best, ed In a message dated 5/16/2006 3:06:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farna@xxxxxxx writes: Only the 196 and early 199/232/258 (up to 1971) had a different tooth count and diamter. The 72 and later 232/259/4.0L have the same diamtere flywheel and tooth count. The ring gears are at different locations though -- one is closer to the starter than the other. Sounds like Ed has the one that's further away and isn't getting good tooth engagement. IIRC the 232/258 ring gear is further from the starter than the 4.0L ring gear. All the small gear driven starters I've seen for these engines are basically the 4.0L starter. I'm not sure if the ring gear can be repositioned or not -- should be doable though, maybe with a new gear. -------------- next part -------------- We ended up coming to the same conclusion. Every time we counted teeth and eyeballed these things...they look the same. New ring gear a All the best, ed [3D"cid:X.MA1.1147861499@xxxxxxx"] In a message dated 5/16/2006 3:06:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farna@xxxxxxx writes: Only the 196 and early 199/232/258 (up to 1971) had a different tooth count and diamter. The 72 and later 232/259/4.0L have the same diamtere flywheel locations though -- one is like Ed has the one that's engagement. IIRC the 232/258 starter than the 4.0L ring gear. All the smal seen for these engines are basically the 4.0L the ring gear can be repositioned or not -- sh maybe with a new gear. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 39876 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20060517/2da715eb/attachment.jpe _______________________________________________ AMC-List mailing list AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list or go to http://www.amc-list.com