Re: [Amc-list] Looking for a torque tube T-96 trans w/OD

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

>    I do know that the 199 should bolt right up where the 196 is, in terms
> of bolting up to the bell and for that matter the flywheel, although I
> suspect that the 67 flywheel should be pretty darn similar. Of course, this
> is useful only if the gearbox from the 67 will bolt up to the 62 clutch
> housing. 

I put a 232 (1970, small bell) in a 63 Classic, so it does fit. It 
attached to the T-96 that was in there, which I later replaced with a BW 
auto. I've long forgot the details (though I still have the car) but I 
am certain of two things:

* Had to replace the front x-member with a 64-up one. Maybe yours will 
take the 199/232.

* Had to drill a 1/2" hole to locate the motor mounts 1" - 2" rearward. 
Easy (after you pull the engine out when you find they don't line up!!! 
Drill first, no harm even if you don't need 'em)

* Flipped the brackets on the radiator to protrude, and cut pretty much 
functionless sheetmetal in the valance to let the bottom tank drop 
through (or use a shorter radiator). (I had a cutting torch at the time.)

I do not know why I had to redrill the pads on the crossmember. It makes 
no sense, but there it is. Maybe the 63 classic chassis mount points for 
the x-member were further forward. There's no way to move the trans 
rearward by accident or anything, with that torque tube!! Whatever. The 
trans to hump and head to firewall clearances are totally normal (1 - 
2") as it is now, it's not like it's crazy close (like an 81 or is it 83 
engine in a 1970 Hornet -- had to move that one FORWARD! so I could get 
the valve cover on it's big fat tall square head.
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list