Hot Rods Olds 324 what to look for.

The above is from an early thread regarding the Saginaw found here
Technical - Saginaw one groove 2.54 first gear help | The H.A.M.B. (jalopyjournal.com)

 

Congratulations on the Olds, they are bitchn little engines. Speed Gems can hook you up with trans adaptors if you want something other than the Hydro.

Search: 14 results found for "oldsmobile*" — Speed Gems (transmissionadapters.com)

-Abone.

 

I'd use the Hydro, but that's just me...

 

Maybe @Paul will chime in, quite knowledgeable on these Olds engines.

 

Check out my 303/hydromatic build in my 40 coupe build thread in my signature. It will tell you most of what you need to know. Lots of discussion on transmission options in it too. I wound up building the hydro (and running a 3.08 rear) which is pretty well documented too. Still car building and have not yet run it, but getting closer. 303 build starts here: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum...t-special-303-olds-taildragger.1078209/page-5

 

As far as I know all 303's and 324's except some of the 56 324's with the jetaway trans have the cranks drilled for a pilot bushing. It depends on the transmission input shaft as to what you will need to do for a pilot bushing, some require an adapter bushing.

 

as to the original question,
no, the Olds is not a bad choice.
the '53 303 (non dynaflow) is a fine choice
and one of the easier early Olds' to put a stick behind.
cranks are internal balance and have a pilot bearing. two big hurdles with the '57 and up engines.
lots of choices for stick transmissions, old or new and everything between.
there are ways around the starter placement if it conflicts with steering box,
you are building a hot rod after all.

do it

 

It's no trouble at all to get more power out of a 303 Olds than 99.9 percent of the hot rodded flatheads put out, and like I said before, since they were pretty much the go to OHV before the Chevrolet V8 came along, there are still plenty of speed parts floating around for them.

 

So tonight the facebook algorithm summoned a Saginaw not far from the house with an asking price of 350$ including the hurst shifter assembly. I have had my eye out for a muncie or t-10's but looks like local prices are running $800-1200 for just the trans without a shifter assembly.
This saginaw is the 3 groove type so a 3.50 1st gear 2.46 second 1.65 third.
This got me curious as to what rear gear ratio i have in my 8.2. I opened her up and looks like I got 3:36 (and posi!!!!)
My question. Would the 3:50 with a 3:36 rear gear set be too low?
Also, if not too low of a 1st. Should I grab this Saginaw? Are they really that inferior to the others? I plan on playing with the car but not abusing it.
Thanks in advance.
Ben

 

Your 3.5 low gear times your 3.36 rear end ratio will be about the same coming off of the line as a wide ratio Muncie and 4.56 gears. However, you'll have one hell of a drop from first to second, and second to third. I'd personally try to find one with a 3.11 low fear, or even 2.85.

 

So my 1953. 303 has a number like this one... Havent heard anyone say different but maybe its CANADIAN??? I KNOW my car was built in 56 from a wrecked 53 olds... maybe thats the canada serial numbers...

 

I'm doing a manual transmission for my '51 Rocket slightly differently (since I'm cheap). I found an adapter from Olds to '49-'64 Ford pretty cheap and then bit the bullet on a starter "switchover". For a transmission, I am using a B/W T89 three speed with an R11 OD out of an early sixties Ford pickup. It should be a strong, versatile setup, since the T89 is a version of the vaunted T85 transmission that saw duty behind FE's among other things.

The above mentioned starter "switchover" is usually necessary because the Olds starter is on the left side of the engine and is right where the steering box wants to live in a lot of vehicles. I was also able to get a pilot bushing adapter from Wilcap for a reasonable sum. There is a small amount of difference between the T89 and an earlier Ford transmission, but it can be taken care of by some minor modifications. The actual transmission bolt pattern is the same.

 

my notes say
'52 is R1001 and up
'53 is R215001 and up
just speculation but if there were late '52 engines in line while early '53 cars were going together it would make sense that yours was original to a '53.

sometime during the '53 run the hydramatic factory burned down and some Olds engines were given dynaflows.

 

..THANK YOU Paul!!! I do have the 561747 block....AND IT does have #3 heads.... I got info from the classic olds forum ( mine does not have 8R PREFIX) so maybe they dont have it all correct...Believe me the corvette stuff has drove me crazy 45 years...

 

Here s what i printed.