Thanks to all that responded. The thread was informative. I was not aware that the ’64 4-speed was marginally-strong and I had read that it was available on ram-engined cars. One would think Chrysler had learned from the 1960 Pont-a-Mousson tranny. That said, the tranny behind the 360 HP single four-barrel engine would be expected to perform well if not abused or used for racing. There are also some published Chrysler spec’s that indicate the hemi was available in the Chrysler chassis in 1964 but there seems to be no evidence that ever happened. Now wondering what four-speed Chrysler furnished on hemi Dodges & Plymouths.
In the ‘60’s I had owned a poor-man’s 300G—a ’61 Newport HT with three on the floor. It looked similar but was not much fun driving on hilly and sometimes slick Omaha streets. But, it never failed behind that storming 361 two-pot. The clutch did not like stop and go city driving. Over the years, I had lunched tranny’s in Fords, a Studebaker, a Buick, and an Olds 88. The only trannys that held up well, beside the Chrysler 3-speed, were in a VW Karmann Ghia, Corvair Monzas, Omni, Horizon, Jeep and a TR-6.
Separate point. It was also interesting to read about the leaded-in dashes in the pre-‘63 console cars. I note that the console in our ’64 300K kicks up a little sooner, is wider and Is designed to just cover the opening where the ash tray would be installed. Hard to tell which was the least expensive fix to adjust for moving the ash tray from the lower portion of the dash to the flat part of the console. And all that so as to display the tach or “Performance Gauge” in such a handy spot.
Tying the two subjects together, it was disappointing to me not to have the four-speed shifter sticking up through the ’64 console. Having it project through the side of the tunnel reminded me of the antique cars with brake handles and shifters outside the cockpits.
Day three and I’ve already learned a few things. Forward Looking to accumulating more CEU’s from you guys.
C300K’ly
Rich Barber
Brentwood, CA
From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@
yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of 'John Grady' jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:17 AM
To: 'Don Cole' <mr300k@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Rich Barber' <c300@xxxxxxx>; 'Val Jeffers' <edward1108@xxxxxxxxx>; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] 300H dual quad linkage
T-10 or 833?
From: Don Cole [mailto:mr300k@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:51 AM
To: John Grady
Cc: Rich Barber; Val Jeffers; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] 300H dual quad linkage
4 speed not available in RAM-K. Sorry to say. Some individuals made what the factory didn't! If you need linkage contact Dave Dumais. He had an H intake on his 4-speed K!!
Passed everything but a gas station!
Don Cole
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:37 AM, 'John Grady' jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300] <Chrysler300-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
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.
From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of 'Rich Barber' c300@xxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 4:43 PM
To: 'Val Jeffers'; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Chrysler300] 300H dual quad linkage
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
From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Val Jeffers edward1108@xxxxxxxxx [Chrysler300]
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 6:02 AM
To: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] 300H dual quad linkage
They made a 4 speed K ?
Thanks,
Val J
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__._,_.___
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap