The Rodding Roundtable
Motorhead Message Central => Rodder's Roundtable => Topic started by: hotrodbob on October 28, 2004, 11:47:02 PM
:?: I've got a '55 265 and my son wants to use it in his "A" project. What auto trans will fit this engine beside a cast iron 'glide :?:
Well, as you probably know, any of the Chevy automatics will bolt to it, Aluminum Glide, T200, T350, T400, 700R4, and all the others too. The problem lies in the fact that your 55 engine is not drilled for a block mount starter, that is required for all these transmissions. I have seen an adapter that fits between the engine and trans that has a mount for the bell housing mount starter that your engine used. Don't know if it's still available. On some of the pre 63 engines, you can drill them for the block mount starters, but I don't think you can on 55 and 56 blocks. There may be crank issues too. I believe if your engine originally has a stick trans, the pilot hole may be too small for the later convertor pilot. Not sure on this. Vague memories from back in the day.
By the way, haven't heard from you in some time, welcome back!
And, the block does not have provisions for front motor mounts on the side. So, you have to use a Hurst style mount on the front. Very nostalgic. Chevy went to side mounts when they eliminated the bell housing mounts (58?). When you use a transmission with a rear mount and a block with the Hurst front mounts the span is to long and the transmission will most likely break at the bell housing flange. Steel adaptors/bell housings and manual transmissions seem to fair better. If you really want to run an auto try to locate a motor with the side mounts
Another option is to use a motorplate between the engine and trans like a dragster. If you do this, remember to space the converter tha same amount as the thickness of the plate. Such as 3/16" plate, 3/16" spacers at the point where the converter bolts to the flexplate.
Sorry! -- I don't mean to hijack this thread. --- I'm just trying to shake the cobwebs loose in my brain.
In addition to the items named above, was there something different about the camshafts used in the early 265's?
....I seem to recall something about the rear journal needing to be grooved (?), due to the way the oiling system was originally designed, and that later-style cams would not work in the early blocks (or, was it vice-versa) ?????
Can someone with working memory cells please help me out? ...Thanks!
Bob's engine is just about 50 years old now! ...It's no wonder my brain cells are dying! :roll:
....Then again, maybe I'm just confused!
To the best of my poor memory, you are correct. This also occurs in early years of big blocks. I used to grind grooves in the last journal so people could use a cam they found somewhere without changing bearings.
I believe the 55-265 cam has a flat on the rear bearing surface. I think it was to oil the hyd lifters. The design changed in later years, maybe when the redesigned the block for an oil filter.
Some of the early Corvette parts suppliers have a plate that allows the use of a late auto trans with the early block and uses the original starter.
Can anyone give me a source for the starter adapter plate. I know I have seen them, but after two days of looking I can't find a source. TIA
Quote from: "kb426"Another option is to use a motorplate between the engine and trans like a dragster. If you do this, remember to space the converter tha same amount as the thickness of the plate. Such as 3/16" plate, 3/16" spacers at the point where the converter bolts to the flexplate.
the hub of the converter that locates the center line of the parts into the end of the crank shaft must be extended too. If not the tranny pump can suffer
Quote from: "enjenjo"Can anyone give me a source for the starter adapter plate. I know I have seen them, but after two days of looking I can't find a source. TIA
I believe Eckler's Corvette in Florida lists them in their catalog.
265 had a notch in the cam on the rear bearing surface. Was not a flat spot all across, rather a notch milled in the center of the bearing surface. Also, not sure of year, maybe 55, maybe all 265s, but some had larger oil holes in lifters. If you put then in a later engine they would pump all the oil to the top of the engine @ higher RPM, starve the crank. Don't ask how I know, it was a long time ago! Just took the cam out of a 56-57 265 last weekeng, rockers not oiling. Had the correct cam. Good thing rockers not oiling because dirt daubers had built nests in waterpump small hole & in block. Had the rockers oiled, I would have ran the engine & ruined it.
I have seen Chev V-8s with front mounts run powerglides, TH 350s, 400s etc & never break. I have also seen them break. I think a lot depends on the HP and how you flog it. Thats a long unsupported space. Plus the saddle front mounts are a little rougher, shake the frame a little more.
I just got a new Ecklers catalog, no starter adapter plates listed. There is another Corvette supplier that carries them, cant remember name. I just took one off when I took out the 265 & put in a later engine but I am going to use it after I rebuild the 265.
Oh yeah, if you use the Hurst style saddle mount you cannot run a mechanical fuel pump & have to use a blockoff plate. Make sure when you remove the stock fuel pump plate to remove the fuel pump pushrod also, if it doesn't fall out on its own. If you fab up stock 55-57 type mounts can use stock mech fuel pump.
Oh yeah, if you use the Hurst style saddle mount you cannot run a mechanical fuel pump & have to use a blockoff plate. Make sure when you remove the stock fuel pump plate to remove the fuel pump pushrod also, if it doesn't fall out on its own. If you fab up stock 55-57 type mounts can use stock mech fuel pump.
I'm still looking for someone who makes the starter adapter.
Quote from: "enjenjo"I'm still looking for someone who makes the starter adapter.
Here's one from Classic Chevy International ...
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/50004/index7.html
That's it. I've been looking all over for that. Thanks :lol:
Quote from: "BELLM"Oh yeah, if you use the Hurst style saddle mount you cannot run a mechanical fuel pump & have to use a blockoff plate. Make sure when you remove the stock fuel pump plate to remove the fuel pump pushrod also, if it doesn't fall out on its own. If you fab up stock 55-57 type mounts can use stock mech fuel pump.
Interesting.... I used a hurst style mount on a model a with a 283 and made a stock pump work. I sure wish I could remember how the heck I did it but im sure there was some grinding involved..
Dave
I've seen a saddle mount with a bend in it to go around a stock fuel pump, but I think it was home-made.
Here's a shot of a Hurst mount in place in case it jogs your memory :D
Looks like someone plumbed the PCV to the fuel pump blockoff. Good idea for using no breather valve covers.
Charlie
Well spotted !
Yup - it works really well. One of these days I'm going to replace the rubber hose with some hard line and it should be a bit harder to spot to the casual observer.
Here's the rest of the engine ...
Quote from: "Charlie Chops 1940"Looks like someone plumbed the PCV to the fuel pump blockoff. Good idea for using no breather valve covers.
Charlie
On the early small block, late trans, starter adapter, I happened to be in the junk yard the other day, and the were removing the trans from the engine, out of a 69 model chevy 60 series truck. Between the engine, and the truck bell housing, was this adapter plate, that had the provision to mount an early starter. It needs a 168 tooth flex plate, and a bit of trimming, but it is just what I needed to adapt a 350 turbo to an early block. Price, free, Priceless :lol:
Quote from: "enjenjo"On the early small block, late trans, starter adapter, I happened to be in the junk yard the other day, and the were removing the trans from the engine, out of a 69 model chevy 60 series truck. Between the engine, and the truck bell housing, was this adapter plate, that had the provision to mount an early starter. It needs a 168 tooth flex plate, and a bit of trimming, but it is just what I needed to adapt a 350 turbo to an early block. Price, free, Priceless :lol:
Runs in my mind that there might be something like that on the back of early 283s that had a cast-iron powerglide. Or maybe it was only the 6s that had a flaky bellhousing to the early automatics. GPster
There was a similar piece used to adapt the cast iron PG to either the 6 or the 8. It was different for each. I've used one for years to store a sbc standing on its clutch end.
Quote from: "model a vette"There was a similar piece used to adapt the cast iron PG to either the 6 or the 8. It was different for each.
Now to add this to my pool of use-less information. I understand that the back of the blocks are differant but are the powerglide patterns the same? Just to add a little strangeness to this question, do you think the powerglide front bolt pattern might be the same clear back to '50 when they started using them behind the 235 sixes? I have a strange desire to keep bolting "junk" together along with the recommendation that I drive vehicles with automatic transmissions. If the powerglides are the same for 6s and 8s from '55 to '62 (?) and they where the same as the '50 to '54 except for the open-versis-closed driveshaft I'd have a bunch of replacement possibilities for spare parts. I'm strange that way, now to go out and do more digging on the hole for the pond and moving the dirt for fill around the new driveway. It keeps me out of traffic. GPster
I can only tell you what I had and saw: I had both a '57 Belair PG trans and a '61 Vette PG trans, both from V8s and both bolted up the same. I'm pretty sure the trans itself was the same for the 6's as far as the pattern to the adapter I described. I'm not sure about the bolt pattern of earlier 6's versus '55 to '62 6's but I suspect they are the same. There was no reason for Chevy to change it. After all they didn't change to a V8 bellhousing patern until they brought out the 194, 230, 250 series of sixes. I don't think they would make the investment since they used an adapter to put the V8 to the iron PG.
Hate to rain on your parade but a lot of the newer transmissions will NOT work with the older blocks, at least not as a direct bolt-on.
The problem lies in the crank balancing.
All late model engines with the one-piece rear main seal do NOT have the counterweight on the back of the crank. (that's so that the seal will slide over the end of the crank.) The necessary weight has been added to the flex plate to compensate for the missing counterweight.
If you put one of these late flex plates on an early crank, you run the risk of pounding out the rear main bearing due to the severe imbalance in the rotating assembly.
Get the correct flex plate for the engine. Don't try and use the flex plate that comes with the transmission.
Thanks for all the info guys.
Based on your input I've shelved the 265 idea. Picked up a '65 - 283 PP engine and have a '64 PG from my older son's Malibu. So that solves the trans and mouting problems.
Anyone need a 265 w/ 283 heads? Unknown condition. I also have one of them hurst style front mounts? Trade for a reversed eye front spring for the "A" or a '40 rear spring.
I'm not getting notified when you guys post, so ya may have to contact me direct; hotrodbob@sbcglobal.net