Saginaw vs. Muncie- hype or really stonger?

Really guys, I haven't met a transmission or a rear axle I couldn't break. But I also haven't met a transmission or a rear axle that I can't use for a long time, as long as it wasn't worn out before it came to me. It all depends on your at***ude.

If it breaks too easy, get a better one, or learn to drive what you have.
If you can't break it, you just ain't trying hard enough. There is no such thing as indestructable.
And above all, if you just can't break it and you want it broke, give me a call, it's been a while since I tried to break something. I sure miss all that fun. Parts got expensive...
Gene

 

I've run a saginaw in my '31 with a built small block for years with no problems. Lots of thrashing and lots of speedshifting. However, I have been ***ured that my luck will eventually run out. When it does, I have a choice spend $800 on a transmission that may survive or spend $100 on a transmission that may survive. Run what you have and what you can afford!

 

Frank,the info looks go to me ,please explain.

 

I have a 1968 Saginaw behind a 454. It endured much abuse in my younger years, behind a 327. I would often yank second gear to get that little fish tail and brodies were the order of the day. Other than munching clutches, expected, the thing has held up quite well. The case is Iron rather than Aluminum (Some muncies) so that is a good thing. The gears might be the weak link but not in my experience. The spacing between the gears is precipitous, but again I must have been lucky, as mine seems to put both engines directly in the meat of the torque band. Of course both engines were/are good up to 6 grand on the tach.

If I had my druthers I would pop for the Super T-10 or perhaps the Richmond 4+1, then you can run numerically lower gears and still get the overdirve effect without spindly gears and rings.

 

It should have a aluminum tailshaft and an iron case, and a 6 ring input shaft indication a 3.42 first gear. Weakest ge****t, but strongest case.

 

I'll dig it out of the dark recesses of my garage this weekend and give you the lowdown on it. It's definitely all cast iron, but it was made way after the late '50s transmissions. I've never seen one like it.

 

Sorry I missed it in all the arguing and belly aching.......

 

Hope this helps somebody

http://www.nastyz28.com/index.php?page=camarotransmission

 

Cool - they never made a cast iron tailshaft for the ST10. Maybe you have a T10. They were all cast iron. They made them right through the 60's also. Mopar used them until they got the 833 in 64', and AMC used them right through the 60's. My dad had an AMX that had a T10 in it.

The ST10 was an early 70's invention - it was used to replace the muncie when they discontinued their manufacture in 1974.

 

Huh? I have an all-aluminum T10D (has 1962 date codes if I recall).

 

My question is...what are YOU smoking?

The only thing I could see arguable is nobody defines "low horsepower" factory apps. My moms 65 malibu SS has the 283/195hp with the M20 in it. But we also had a 67 Camaro RS convertible with a 327/210 that had a saginaw 4 spd....both from the factory. Everything the other guy stated is true...except for jerico's not breaking, and G-force's...lol

 

Back to the subject at hand. These are pricey but it's cool that you can buy them brand new again.
http://www.5speeds.com/newm22.html

 

A bit more info for you as well - input shaft rings to gear ratios - http://www.musclemotorparts.com/******s.htm, 2 ring would be fun with you flathead!

 

Really? Maybe I have that backwards...

 

I think the Borg Warners did both iron and aluminum, but I'm not 100% certain on that.



Edit... yep... found it (mine's the 1D):
http://www.kajunjon.com/Main/FAQ.htm

Dear ol' Dad used to tell me he liked the aluminum case T10's because of the weight but warned me they could be more fragile because they flexed more. I can't say that I know first hand how true that is, though... mine was a little wounded when I got it, but it never got any worse in spite of a lot of youthful misbehavior.

 

Thats what's strange about my "mystery" T10. It's cast iron like the '57-early '61s, but I know the casting dates are 20 years after that. I'll try to get to it this weekend and get a better description.

 

Busted Munchie

Some good stuff

Could someone Help me Identify this trans and tell me if it's a good one or Not?

 

Looks like a Richmond 5 speed (?) (formerly Doug Nash, too). A always thought they were pretty spiffy but I never ran one.... so couldn't tell ya if they're tough or not.


http://www.richmondgear.com/01transmissions.html