I do not think that is right? Even if in book? ….the BW- T10 (possible only choice?) was way too weak for big hi performance hi RPM RB blocks; GM used it in 61, 421 Pontiacs constantly stripped the input shaft gears. I think it was developed for 283/327 corvette app, where I first saw it. ? 59 or 60? Chrysler’s 3 spd was a pin syncro, sorry to say ,= garbage shifts., pins break off if you shift fast, , fall into mesh , violently blow it up...Bulletproof Packard trans had right design cone syncro in early 30’s , must be NIH-- ??? why Chrysler stuck with known bad Mopar approach on new HD 3 spd trans in 61, same bad design as pre 61 on syncros**. . . But some early / mid 60’s 383 came with T 10—which has a good cone syncro. (till it wears out) All though this period the Ford BW- T85 “police car “ gear box was available, was really tough, came with OD too. 57 up, at least . I vaguely remember some max wedge did that , to get away from “new” 3 spd Chrysler dog trans ? Chrysler seemed not to want to use anything from BW, maybe because TF was so much better than BW automatics it really hurt BW? Tension? As mentioned before here , first 727 got into 12’s at nationals , in big heavy Chrysler 300 ---that was it for GM. Not a single GM 4 spd did better than the HRM special 727 300 with Ray Brock driving. Asleep at line , he lost in final to a slower time. 300 with 4;56 and a insane ~ 294 degree cam.
I do not know when 833 came out , late 60”s or maybe with Hemi? Would have needed it at Nascar. ? 64, overlap with ram 300K ? possible??…But I never heard of one .Don Cole would know..I think even L had only a T10, but lower HP, non race app too.
Interesting stuff. A ram K and 833 4 speed in 64 would be one hell of a setup….??? Faster than “similar thinking” 4spd F.
** I blew up about 20 of them in 1960-61 racing a stick 57 D500. So know from where I speak. Dog. Fast 1-2 shift = boom. 15$ each at junkyard (unless Sunday afternoon) . Change in 20 minutes at end.
Yes. The four-speed manual transmission was originally an option on all 300’s except the 300K’s with the 390 HP dual-quad engine (http://www.jholst.net/tech-manual/option-price.pdf). Later (?) made available on K’s with the 390 HP dual-quad engine, also. http://www.jholst.net/64-supplement/supplement.pdf (Pages 51 & 52). Spec’s call for the same differential ratio of 3.23. I don’t recall how much horsepower was lost in the torque converter, but the manual transmission should have put more power to the road and achieved somewhat better fuel economy.
Happy New Year to all,
Rich Barber
Brentwood, CA
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap