Re: [Amc-list] 7 Main Bearing engine into 62 Classic

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: "oldcars@xxxxxxxxx" <oldcars@xxxxxxxxx>
" 
" After having a good look at things, I have come to think that I might want
" to use the 1967 199 instead of the later 232. 
" 
" The 1967 199 should bolt up to the 1962 bell housing, which means I can
" retain the rear mounts as are already in place.

iirc dowel pins are smaller on the 199/232/258 than the 196, so you'll
need to come up with some little bushings to index the bell properly.
not tough, just a detail to get right.

" I imagine I would have to use the 1967 starter
" I should be able to use the 1962 flywheel and clutch internals...or would I
" need to use the 1967 flywheel?

from what i've heard, the flywheels are the same except the later one
has a 10.5" clutch pattern as well as the 9" one.

9" clutch parts are the same, well up into the '70s.

if you're shopping for a clutch, i still think 10" hd is the way to
go since parts price is similar; perfection hytest p/n --
rcf446	disk
ca1525	b&b pp, '9"' bolt pattern
ca1864	b&b pp, 10.5" bolt pattern
ca1897	dia pp, 10.5" bolt pattern
all go with the stock 9" clutch throwout bearing.

partsamerica lists them all, though only by part, not applications.
this doesn't guarantee availability even though they have prices...
i've used the ca1864 on a '66 american.  pedal travel is long, near
the limit, so initial adjustment has to be just right.  btw it really
has to be an 1864 or direct match 10" pp; a 10.5" will not clear the
late-'60s bell.

pedal travel should not be a problem with the 1897; diaphragm types
have a flatter 'spring curve' - more clamping force with less pedal
pressure - so the need for travel to get leverage isn't there.  also,
lower diaphragm profile shouldn't have clearance problems even if it
is a 10.5" size.

" Now, as far as the transmission itself goes, the top bolts and the bearing
" retainer look to be in the exact same location on both transmissions.
" The difference is in the lower 2 bolts. 
" It looks like the lower holes from the 62 would line up on the outside of
" the transmission case of the 67.

this sounds like the reverse of what i'd heard, that the lower holes
were moved down when the rear mounts moved from the bell to the
tailshaft.  before, the tranny was hanging off the bell; after, the
tranny is half supporting the engine - principally through the lower
bolts.

if you're right, is there enough thickness on the bell to drill for
the '67 lower bolts?

" If it became necessary to make a plate which would bolt to all 6 holes (top
" 2 bolts would bolt through the plate, the plate would bolt to the bottom 2
" holes on the bellhousing, and to the bottom holes (ears)on the
" transmission. 
" How thick could I get away with making such a plate?

i'd be concerned about moving the bearing retainer back from its
indexing hole on the bell.  this is the primary way the tranny is
lined up with the crank.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list