Shifters, Hurst and others

[WebMonkey]

well the trunk was in a different zip code from the driver's seat

 

[HotWheelsBurban]

well the trunk was in a different zip code from the driver's seat

Yeah a '76 fullsize GM car is as big as my crew cab....

 

[ChuckN]

Yeah a '76 fullsize GM car is as big as my crew cab....

well the trunk was in a different zip code from the driver's seat

I started referring to all those cars as Goodfellas cars- as in how many bodies one could fit in a trunk.

 

[Ricko1966]

I had 2 bass cannons both got stolen. @410 John. Heres some pics for you. Factory 4speed Saginaw and Home brew 3speed saginaw shift linkage. You can use that 3speed picture for the four speed linkage , but know you will have to make a reverse rod. You said your going saginaw 4 speed to make the truck more fun. Be aware the saginaw was the low performance transmission. Small tire 4 cylinder,6 cylinder, and under 300 hp V8. Are you getting the bellhousing with the saginaw? Something to think about is an s10 4.3 t5 swap. Shifter and transmission 300.00 pick n pull. Then you could run 3.73 gears but have reasonable hiway rpm.

 

[410 John]

@410 John, that Jegs shifter looks like it mounts to the crossmember. If so, you're gonna have to use solid motor and transmission mounts or it's gonna bind on a power shift........and we ALL now it's gonna be POWER SHIFTED..........I used a turnbuckle (chain works too)from the frame to the front of the block on the driver side to hold everything tight on my 68 Chevy II

I didn’t realize it wasn’t a trans mounted shifter. I thought only Vega/monza were like that. I’m sure I can make it mount to the trans.

 

[idahovette]

My 70 LS6 Chevelle with the M-22 was that way, too. GM engineers dropped the ball on THAT design

 

[Ricko1966]

I didn’t realize it wasn’t a trans mounted shifter. I thought only Vega/monza were like that. I’m sure I can make it mount to the trans.

If gm mounted it to the crossmember rather than the Transmission it probably was because the tailshaft wasn't located, where the shifter needed to come up.. Damnt post 19 I meant to put up pics. Here they are

 

[idahovette]

If gm mounted it to the crossmember rather than the Transmission it probably was because the tailshaft wasn't located, where the shifter needed to come up.. Damnt post 19 I meant to put up pics. Here they are

NO that's not right. The Hurst, I put on my LS6 car, fit perfectly in the floor opening and thru the boot. As I said before, it was a poor GM engineering thought at the time.

 

[ChuckN]

My 70 LS6 Chevelle with the M-22 was that way, too. GM engineers dropped the ball on THAT design

Sorry for being off topic, I’d love to hear more about the LS6 on a post sometime.

 

[Ricko1966]

NO that's not right. The Hurst, I put on my LS6 car, fit perfectly in the floor opening and thru the boot. As I said before, it was a poor GM engineering thought at the time.

You might have said it before, but that doesn't mean its absolutely true. We don't know why they mounted some shifters how and where they mounted them. I'm sure there is more to it than it was poor GM engineering. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

 

[Ricko1966]

@Rusty Nail and others that put up sad emojis when I post some of the things that have happened to me. No Need, I lived through them got on with my life and sometimes even learned something. I can look back and laugh because if these are the worst things that happen to me,I got off lucky.

 

[bucket]

You might have said it before, but that doesn't mean its absolutely true. We don't know why they mounted some shifters how and where they mounted them. I'm sure there is more to it than it was poor GM engineering. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

It was likely done simply as an attempt to isolate engine and transmission vibrations from the shifter lever. So from a comfort standpoint, good engineering. But from a performance standpoint, bad engineering. And most big block Chevelle owners were looking primarily for performance, if I had to make an assumption.

 

[Ricko1966]

It was likely done simply as an attempt to isolate engine and transmission vibrations from the shifter lever. So from a comfort standpoint, good engineering. But from a performance standpoint, bad engineering. And most big block Chevelle owners were looking primarily for performance, if I had to make an assumption.

Yep I absolutely wanted to say it isolated engine and transmission vibration and noise. Just didn't want to start a war. It is funny when I went from a rubber isolated shifter to a solid mount,almost immediately I was thinking oh crap I've got a main shaft bearing going out,then figured out I was just hearing and feeling things I hadn't before. Most people weren't power shifting 85 percent were just driving so a few complaints about binding vs. Lots of complaints about vibration and noise. I also thought factory muncie 4speed cars got transmission mounted hurst shifters.