I'm very curious about the reliability of many of these early three speed gear boxes. I see a few folks racing these cars who are experiencing durability problems, ranging fron certain internal damage to catastrophic failure. I'm at a bit of a loss understanding why that might be. I mean, I could see a big Jimmy hopped up all to hell, breaking something, but even Rocky's little Ford 170 is hurting the big transmissions. How? I've owned and driven a lot of these early cars during my misspent youth. A 50 GMC and a 54 Chevy pickup, both with three speeds. A Couple early Falcons and a Comet, all with the little three speeds, a Couple Ramblers. etc. Believe me when I tell you, I beat the PISS outa each and every one of these cars, and most of them were used up when I got them. Never did I break even the frailest of these transmissions. Perhaps I was lucky, but it seems to me that eliminating virtualy HALF (or more) of the weight of the stock automobiles these engines and transmissions came in, would greatly decrease the chance of breaking any "weak links". Any thoughts on what causes this to happen? Since the debate on the Chevy 194 raged and finally subsided with no real solution or decision (and I aint lifting the lid off THAT kettle again) I'm searching for a suitable engine/trans combination that will both meet the rules and hopefully stay in one piece. Trouble is, there are a few of you lead foots out there that are shaking my confidence! Thoughts and ideas?
Well, I expect I'll catch a ration for this but I bet my skin can still handle it ....... It was no different years ago, folks who hammered their launch and "power" shifted their smaller boxes busted parts. Sprayed gearboxes, u-joints and rears were a commonality at the strips and in front of high schools (to the entertainment of the kids and the consternation of the teachers ). Those that pre-loaded their launches and step-powered their shifts busted'em less often. Far less glamorous but also far less expensive. Hell, at one time you regularly saw a crewman or two holding a car by the ass on the line against the clutch drag, an early form of the later array of "line-lock" contrivances designed for the purpose. Further tendencies toward steel self destruction may be gained by the practice of removing gear teeth to precipitate faster shifting (originally done prior to the developement of synchros) as Rocky and Lee do. Not the wisest procedure on an already marginal box as it guarantees weakened gears. Still, the largest contributing factor (in my never to be humble opinion ) is hammering the gears with load. Think of it this way; you can lift a car off the ground using only two teeth of any transmission gear, and you can knock off both of'em by hand with a single claw hammer strike. Q7 has a good point, when used to pre-load a launch a slush pump'll do your thinking for you (but it's bad enough having to admit my new camera's smarter'n I am, let alone my trans ). However when used "trans brake" style it just sends the shock loading on down the line, into the u-joints and rear.
You can break almost anything with missed shifts, bad driving technique and stand on it and pop the clutch starts and the "contact cement" covered drag strips of today tend to provide lots of traction, even with our 6" tires to allow for some serious shock loading of the drive-line if that's your style. Driven with a small amount of finesse, most of the early transmissions will hold. Rocky and Lee have done some "modifications" to the internals of their trannys and that has led to the "early demise" of a few behind Lee's love of burnouts, carrying the front wheels off the line and shifting fast enough to make the three-speed sound like a Lenco. That said, I have broken a few in the past myself back in the mid '60s...primarily from full throttle launches, side stepping the clutch pedal to worn out '39 boxes behind a built flathead in a '41 Mercury, (heavy car...serious shock loading and bad technique) and missed shifts in a '50 Chevy coupe that I abused over several years in the "stoplight drags". Even so, our plans are to run the '34 Dodge top load three-speed in our HA/GR and I'm not really thinking it will have any problems. Not planning on launching the car a 5,000 rpm with a side step and planning on the car being as close to 1,000 lbs as we can get it. Ya makes your choice and takes your chances...if things break...replace them with stronger parts or change your style (or both).
I ran a flathead powered dragster in 1957 that had a toploader 39 trans with a 40 Ford rearend with 411's. I broke many transmissions and one rearend. In 1957 you could go to the wrecking yard and buy a 39 trans for $25 or a 40-48 side shift for $15. Blowing up a trans was more the work than the cost. Today I put $1500 dollars worth of trans and clutch stuff in and because the new tracks run VHT and if they are prepped right they are sticky. You either baby it coming out or you blow because they are to weak. If you go a Ford toploader out of a 80's Ford pickup I believe they can stand the abuse. I gave up because it was no fun and went to a powerglide and have raced 2 years and 18 race dates without a blip. Just depends on where your fun spot is, mine is racing and not tearing into the car. Roy
Roy, I agree completely. Building the car is fun. Racing it is fun. Breaking it is NOT. An Automatic is the best answer. Honestly, the only reason I want to go with a stick, is the same reason that I am not using my second generation 194 Chevy. I'm out west, and I do plan (at some point) to get down to California and race with those guys. I can't in good conscience show up with something that is outside the written rules. It's also hard to promote a class locally with a car that is built outside that classes rules. So....on I go. I do have a Ford toploader four speed, but I don't know how difficult it will be to adapt it to something like a Jimmy or Stovebolt. We will just wait and see where my engine search takes me...
Betcha didn't go to a cast iron, two speed PG from the period, eh? Sorry 348, never could pass up a free punch line (and where's a rim shot icon when you need it?). Yeah, the '39 series top loaders needed good attention to the end play bushings to keep the cases together. No more'n a few thou slop, max! But as you noted, that was truly part of the deal of then. A "modernized" car certainly should lack that aspect, no argument. Nor any argument with your outlook on it ........ for you. I sprayed two gearboxes back in lowly N/Stock, before I got it down too. For me that's part of it again. The wrenching's just part of the dues for getting it wrong, as it was then. I think there's room for both of us. And yes, that verdamt glue definitely makes it worse. Decided to upgrade our clutch this year as our properly tweaked stocker was slipping still at (the heavily glued) Bako. Nowhere else, just there, but that's where we get to race out here. Butch's & Randy's meets are great, so ........ tit for tat, no guilt for a modern solution to a modern caused problem, nor embarrassment for old solutions to old problems ....... for me. Four Banger, I wish you could've used the 194 and just popped on a first gen head. That would've put'er right in the spirit, as the slant does with our two heads. Well, that was my view, turned out not to be the consensus I guess. Most felt that the generational distinction was too fine to be allowed reliably. The whole slush pump thing actually turns on a different point (driver involvement). Those making that change don't address the original point, instead making the reliability argument. An honest argument, but not the one the rule was written for. That they're willing to give up that aspect of it for the gained reliability and ease of running is duly noted. We want a little more of the old experience. Just two diverging outlooks on the theme. As to racing with our little group here, I'd like to clarify something that seems to be getting lost ...... You're invited, and welcome, and wanted (as are all forms of the car) to join us at any time. The only awards we've restricted to "rowers" (and for the original reasons solely) are those two based on that concept. And that's just the awards themselves, not the racing, not the friendships, not the pizzas & beers. Well, maybe the last slice and the last beer.
To paraphrase the movie "field of Dreams"... "If you build it, you can break it". Ain't been a part made yet that someone won't find a way to abuse to the point of destruction. If race cars were indestructible, it would take a lot out of the experience and the whole aspect of making it work would be out the window. There may be ways of building an "unbreakable, 100 percent reliable race car that will run within a hundredth of a second every pass and ways to cut the tree consistently in the blink of an eye, but is that what we truly want. Given that option I think I would take up golf. Different strokes for different folks, but half the fun comes from constantly trying to get the most performance out of the car and driver on each run and not out of trying to run within .001 of the dial in. Never cared for handicap racing of any sort and the concept of someone "going too fast" and losing the race just seems wrong!
Four banger, first off make a motorplate that bolts to the GMC or Chev stovebolt. Then bolt your normal Explosion proof bell housing to the motorplate. Run a 153 tooth flywheel with a Ford starter that you bolt to the motorplate. Enclosed are some pictures. The Gmc-Chev crank sticks out from the back of the block more than the Chev or Ford Block so you have to space the motorplate back about 1/2 inch. This not hard to do just a lot of machining and it has to be accurate. Roy
Thank you so much for the suggestions, ideas, and observations. I feel a bit better about this now. Roy, thanks for the pics of the midplate and the specifics thereof. As soon as my vintage stovebolt is ready to go, I'll put this tidbit of info to good use. This is much appreciated. And Dick, thank you for making me feel welcome...even if I am temporarily outside the rules, the spirit feels sincere! Since it may be close to a year before I'm flush with enough cash to get the stovebolt built, I think I will go ahead and use what I have for the time being. This 194 is ready to go, other than carbs. A guy I know built it years ago and tried to run it in an oval car, in the belief that the steel crank would allow him to spin it up tight enough to make more power than the other, bigger Chevy boys. It didn't work....the 230's ate him alive. In any case, it runs good, and all I need to do is bolt on my Sprint car header, put on a couple carbs, and go. I still have the side mount bell housing, and three speed from the Step Van I parted out, and it had a NEW clutch pak and release bearing!!! Anyway, I'll get the garage cleaned out, and start mocking up the pieces. Thanks to everyone again.
LOL! So do I! I have three basic chassis configurations I want to try....but I'm only building ONE car. Still have to make that decision first! Then I gotta go get some steel....Um...I sorta used what I had building a frame for my Olds powered Morris Minor. Anyway, my garage is a shambles at the moment, so first I clean and organize, then put the Oval car away for the winter. THEN, I start laying out my ideas on the floor, and decide which way I want to go forward. As soon as I get my engine, rear end, seat, and front axle arranged in a pleasing fashion, I'll fire up the hot saw and welder and start whippin ass!
Maybe we aught to start a 194 class, Four Banger.. Hell, We already have 2. Thats what they started out with....
Hey guys, don't forget, there were three rails in the begining, not two. I still own the ultimate HA/GR trans. Liberty Pro-Shifted . . .
four banger the only ha/gr car i know of who hasnt had tranny problems is 2b your mokan champ for the last 3 years he runs a chevy trans behind his flathead and he shows it no mercy right 348 you might pm him
Considering the sticky nature of modern race tracks (VHT, Concrete, Etc.) I wonder if using a VERY heavy flywheel, and direct drive would be an option? I don't know if you could get the tires spinning without blowing SOMETHING to bits? I just like thinking of all the options, before making a decision...!
Four Banger, I use a late model Dodge truck tranny behind my slant and have had no problems. It probably weighs 75-80 pounds more than a car, but also has a 10" clutch behind it. As far as using direct drive, you may want to PM GMC Bubba on the board. He tried that with a healthy built 302 and could not get it to leave the line. Robert
I kinda suspected that the direct drive idea probably wouldn't work, but it was a thought.....I have a Ford top loader 4 speed that should work okay, if they're as stout as everyone says. I also have a GM pickup three speed (Saginaw) that LOOKS hell for stout, too. I mean it's a good sized transmission, compared to the GM car 3 speeds. I'll figure out what I want to use, as soon as I decide my drive train layout.
I have three seasons on our stock Valiant three speed. Only problem so far is the 140 wt. gear lube I put in by mistake this season that finally stopped the synchros (2nd & 3rd) from working properly. I'll put some regular oil or ATF back in for next season. Everyone says they're a weak gearbox but I've blown two pressure plates in front of it and no argument yet. I do however, know how to launch and shift without killing a gearbox (learned the hard way on stock '50s Chevy boxes behind my 235s).
Practice launching hard without any tire spin and lift the throttle slightly on the shifts and the trans will live. Launch by sidestepping the clutch at 6,000rpm and shift with the throttle on the floor and get used to replacing the trans. Something to do with physics and metallurgy. Another option if you like smoking the tires on launch is go to a smaller, narrower tire.
The Jalopy Journal
