Fitting a Muncie m22 into my truck

[Red Ron]

Ok guys I'm needing some help (Please) My dad gave me his 65 GMC LB fleet side a few years ago before he passed and he had put a 73 front end w/power disc brakes and a 1977 350 (tired) in it.It was a 305 v6 with a granny 4 speed w/mounts on the bellhousing which he used.
Now I have rebuilt a 68 327 w/muncie m22. with a 11 inch fly wheel and clutch just to find out the aluminum bellhousing on the m22 was for a 10.5 flywheel and won't fit over my clutch. I was thinking of using the old cast iron bellhousing w/mounts on it but the center hole is larger than the m22 alignment ring next to the input shaft does that matter? The mounting bolts are the same. It will help to use the old bellhousing because clutch pedal arms and rods are the same as they were.Should I use the mounts on the bellhousing and a tranny mount it has regular motor mounts on the motor also? Or should I let them float and use the tranny mount? Or all of them? I'm going to use a newer drive shaft (one piece) out of lb chevy. Old drive shaft w/carrier bearing is now too long. Thanks, Ron

[Captainfab]

Yes the front bearing retainer of the trans needs to fit snuggly inside the center hole of the bellhousing. This is what locates to the center of the crank and keeps it there.

If you can't find an older truck bellhousing with the smaller center hole, you can either buy or make a adapter ring to make up the difference between the bellhousing anf the trans front bearing retainer. I believe Advance Adapters has them.

If you're going to run the original style bellhousing with the side mounts, there is no need for a transmission mount on the rear of the trans. I ran one this way for a while without any issues. I believe others on this forum have done the same.

[raycow]

I agree with the Captain on all points. Your 65 "should" have had the right size center hole for the Muncie, but evidently someone swapped bellhousings at some point in the past. The lowest price I have found on the spacer ring so far is $28 here:

http://dennymac.com/mod.php?mod=user...103&page_id=54

They are also available from Advance, Novak, and I think McLeod.

Ray

[raycow]

Bellhousing mounts run through 72. If you have a 67-72 manual without them, somebody else got to it before you did.

Ray

[Red Ron]

Ray,
The housing I have that came in the truck does have the mounts and is cast iron, The old tranny I think was the original that was behind the V6 it had a granny gear that you could get out of the truck and walk along side and probably get there faster.
The m22 and bellhousing must have came out of a car with a 10.5 clutch, it would not fit over the new 11 inch clutch I installed. Funds are VERY limited so I'll go with the adpter to fit the car tranny to the original truck bellhousing.
When I was thanking about using the aluminum bellhousing I was going to modify the carrier bearing brace for a tranny mount for the m22. but now I think it will be less work to go ahead and use the cast Iron bellhousing with the mounts so that the clutch linkage and all will stay the same.
Thanks for the help all!! Ron

[Red Ron]

John,
I think I'll go ahead and modify my old carrier bearing support into a tranny mount support just for good measure... Can't hurt. It is a longbed.. Thanks,
Ron

[raycow]

Ron, I agree completely that you should use the cast iron bellhousing with a spacer ring. Even more so than the mounts, the real advantage of that bellhousing is the bellhousing-mounted starter. A lot of people are completely unaware of this until they start having engagement problems with a block-mounted starter. The bellhousing-mounted starters are MUCH more reliable in this regard than the block mounted ones. I even use cast iron bellhousings in cars whenever I can for this reason.

All I was trying to say in my first post was that these cast iron truck bellhousings are not all the same. If yours had originally been installed in a 65 truck from the factory, your M-22 would have fit properly without a spacer ring. The large center hole didn't start until 1968.

Your aluminum bellhousing undoubtedly came out of a car. The aluminum truck bellhousings will all accept the larger 168 tooth flywheel and clutch and they all have the large center hole.

Ray

[jocko]

Ditto - concur with Lakeroadster. Should be either the bell hsg mounts OR the rear crossmember, but not both. Can cause structural stresses not designed for in the first place. This is not a case of "more is better" (i.e. more mounting points). And I have a good, pertinent example for you - I drove a 57 Bel Air with a 68 327 and muncie set up for about 12 years - with only front engine mounts and the bell hsg mounts - no crossmember for the trans. The engine was tunnel rammed with 11.25:1 compression and all kinds o goodies. While everything else on the car broke, the trans never did.
I'd do just what you suggest (the adapter set up for mounting the trans to the bigger hole) and then skip the rear trans crossmember/carrier bearing stuff. Your truck sounds like a sweet set-up when you get it all together!

[RollinKaos]

Originally Posted by lakeroadster

As stated by Captainfab if you use the stock bellhousing support you will not need a transmission mount. My '65 runs a M21, a SBC 350 and the factory bellhousing support. The M21 is cantilevered off the back of the motor, no tranny mount at all. This makes the transmission and routing the exhaust very accessible.

When I first bought my truck the lack of a tranny crossmember stumped me? Here is a thread related to that. Make sure you read all the way to the end, some good actual real world knowledge related to aluminum cantilevered Muncies: http://www.stovebolt.com/ubbthreads/...=451242&page=1

The other option though is to go with an aftermarket steel bellhousing (good safety adder in case clutch grenades) and add a transmission crossmember.
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Tubula...Drop,4356.html

Just kind of depends on what your budget is and what you can find as far as good used parts go.

Goodluck

I have this exact set up in my truck as well. Bellhousing mounts no rear trans mount M21 trans behind a 350 sb.

[Red Ron]

I can understand how too many attachment points may be hazardous to the overall package, so I'll let the rubber mounts work, just the idea of that rock crusher hanging out there by four bolts is scary, I do under stand that after I install the adapter ring and the input shaft is in the pilot bearing it's one single unit. I've only been dragging this thing around since 1982 waiting for the right project for it... thanks guys.

[Red Ron]

I got the trans adapter made by a good friend, worked out great. Ok another question, can I use the throw out bearing fork from a newer bell housing with the old one with mounts (Ray was right it was from a 67) the old one is cast and the newer ones looked stamped. Thought it would be stronger. Never heard of the cast ones breaking but it is almost 40 yrs old. They look the same length.
I have a guy coming to do some soda blasting on a customers boat this week, think I'll have him blast my fire wall while he's here. I've never seen it at work. (soda blasting)
Thanks again, Ron

[Rich 5150 69]

I have seen articles where soda blasting interferes with paint adhesion, I don`t want to alarm you but might look into it first....

[Captainfab]

This is exactly why I recommend against soda blasting. Some paint companies will not warranty their paint if it is applied over a soda blasted surface. It is much better to use some sort of other blast media....but not silica sand either

Originally Posted by Rich 5150 69

I have seen articles where soda blasting interferes with paint adhesion, I don`t want to alarm you but might look into it first....

[padresag]

Originally Posted by Captainfab

This is exactly why I recommend against soda blasting. Some paint companies will not warranty their paint if it is applied over a soda blasted surface. It is much better to use some sort of other blast media....but not silica sand either

"but not silica sand either"
as I read this statement is that it would refer to a problem of adhesion of paint to metal as relative to soda blasting. I was and am curious to what that would be. I have not heard of a problem in this area before
the other two replies referring to dying and warping material are common sense applications
ron

[raycow]

Originally Posted by Red Ron

can I use the throw out bearing fork from a newer bell housing with the old one with mounts (Ray was right it was from a 67) the old one is cast and the newer ones looked stamped. Thought it would be stronger. Never heard of the cast ones breaking but it is almost 40 yrs old.

If you are keeping the stock 65 pushrod, I think you will find that it won't mate with the stamped fork. It might be possible to fix this by using the later pushrod, but if you do that, check out how it looks at the Z-bar end. Btw, those older forks are forged, not cast, and they are almost indestructible.

Ray

[Red Ron]

Ray,
I'll keep the old fork if it's forged, at a quick glance I thought it looked cast. Thanks. That's why I ask these questions, It's only stupid if you don't ask it... You guys are a GREAT resource.
This week I will be receiving the new motor and bellhousing mounts and next weekend I should have the engine in. Thanks again guys.
Ron

[Red Ron]

Yes I have heard cleaning after is a *****, but dipping, stripping is also has it's problems. Maybe I should do a door panel first something easy to clean, Thanks that is a good thought. Be hell cleaning the firewall. even worst having to clean of peeling paint after motor is in the truck. Thanks
Ron

[padresag]

what is the problem with silica sand?
ron

[padresag]

other than dying from it, are there problems with using it on body panels as like the capt was referring to with soda blasting?
ron

[Red Ron]

If the guy gets a little too close or stays on it too long it will warp the panel. Sand blasting is not the way on flat panels....

[Red Ron]

They say after the soda blasting use a wire brush and vinegar or self etching primer and you should not have a problem with paint adhesion.
Ron

[Red Ron]

Ron,
As far as I know there is no adhesion problem w/sand medium, as in all paint prep you should clean the metal with a solvent that leaves nothing behind, I do alot of fiberglass parts and I use acetone or the reducer that I will be mixing with the paint, to clean everything before spraying.
The other Ron

[Captainfab]

The issue with blasting with silica sand, other than the silicosis, is the embeded silica in the pores of the metal. Some of the epoxy primers will have a reaction with the silica, and not have good adhesion. PPG for one, will not warranty your lifting paint job if you blasted the metal with silica sand. The same goes if it was blasted with soda.

As for having to clean your freshly blasted metal prior to priming. If you use the correct blast media, all you have to do is a thorough blow down with compressed air.

Also the issue with warped body panels, is not caused by the blast media but rather from an inexperienced operator.

[padresag]

thank you, I was just going to use some silica sand. we learn something everyday
ron

[Red Ron]

Capt,
Are you saying the soda stays in the pores of the metal? I havn't used soda but was thinking about buying a soda blaster. (maybe)