Posted by Brian in Oregon on Friday, January 05, 2001 at 0:53AM :
In Reply to: Re: NP420 vs NP435 NOW I'M CONFUSED ! posted by R Davis on Friday, January 05, 2001 at 0:20AM :
Whew!
The NON-HYDRAULIC bellhousing that I'm using WILL NOT fit both the 230 and a 318. If the 230 bellhousing would fit the 318 it would solve our problem right there. Ask Monkey Man - he made a rather complex adaptor plate to mate his stock 230 bellhousing to his 318.
I don't claim to be a Mopar expert, not by a long shot. I've been told the only other engines the 230 bellhousing will fit are some early Red Ram hemis. I do not know if this is true or not.
The M37 NP420 has a short input shaft, and this is made worse by the adaptor plate that has to mate the M37 NP420 to the 318 bellhousing. That's why there are extensions in the kit for the clutch disc and throwout bearing sleeve, and the pilot bushing.
The hydraulic slave cylinder 318 bellhousings I've seen still will not mate to an M37 NP420 bolt pattern, as they use an NP435 pattern.
From what I understand, some late NP420 transmissions have an NP435 bolt pattern. But they no PTO outlet on the drivers side. So why bother with them? Use an NP435 instead and get full synchro.
There may be exceptions made, but in my stomping around some junkyards they have not turned up. Do you have a casting number on your 318/NP420 bellhousing on your 60? Is it hyd or manual?
The idea of this particular kit is to use easy to find parts and the ability to use your original transmission. I'm not aware of a non-hydraulic cast iron 318 bellhousing that does not have ears that accepts the M37 NP420 bolt pattern. If there is one, it would eliminate the need for the adaptor plate. Are you sure your 60 bellhousing is an M37 NP420 bolt pattern or an N435 pattern?
|
Follow Ups:
This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com |