Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am going to very soon, swap out the old and beat TH-700R4 transmission, for an SM-465.

I have every part necessary for this swap with the rod connected clutch pedal, my question is:

Would it be worth considering to swap in a hydraulic assembly or more trouble than I need? I don't have the hydraulic parts for the swap, I was just wondering.

Matt
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,097 Posts
I prefer mechanical. The feel is better, bleeding a hydraulic is a pain, mechanical linkages never need to be replaced when they blow a seal, it's easy to do ratio changes on a mechanical,, unless you can buy stock parts for your application, fabbing your own and getting everything to align correctly so you don't wear out the cylinder bores from pushrod misalignment is a pita.

later, mikey
 

·
Registered
56 chev on 79 chassis, 62 LeSabre
Joined
·
3,141 Posts
dear matt. ***! are you putting this sm465 into?? you see that truck to the right??? THAT has a sm465 in it. you must be crazy to want this trans. the shift from 2nd to 3rd takes so long you can brew a cup of coffee. it sucks even for a TRUCK. it's ONLY good for 4 wheeling, and that's in the hills only. First gear is totally useless unless you are pulling a STUMP or trying to climb a tree!!!!!! now, put down that crack pipe bro. :spank:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,097 Posts
Hahahha bullheimer..I love the 465 in my blazer..it wins hands down in every catagory over the np235 in my f100... :D

And yes ..first gear is good for moving mountains, buildings, and pulling old dead cars sunk in dried mud up to the axles..

The fun shift isn't from 2nd to 3rd...it's from 3rd to second when you are trying to pull 8000 pounds up an already steep hill that gets steeper...and the transfer case is already in low..don't even think about trying to find first if you are moving...( moving my friends excavator from gilroy to his ravine in the santa cruz mountains was more fun than a train load of drunk fat chicks)

Later, mikey
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I've had 3 different trucks with the 465, only 1 of those had any problems shifting, due to a cracked weld on the shifter handle.

I really think it can't possibly be anywhere close of a PITA compared to this Eaton RT-10 I drive every day, NO synchronizers at all in any of the 10 gears.

I'll have a better look at what I will do when I get home next weekend.
 

·
Hotrodders.com Moderator
Joined
·
6,391 Posts
I agree with Mikey. I would stick with the mechanical linkage. Set it up once and forget it. No leaks, no lines to break, no bleeding etc etc.
 

·
Registered
56 chev on 79 chassis, 62 LeSabre
Joined
·
3,141 Posts
WHHHEW! for a minute i thought you were gonna try and shove it into that malibu! HAHAHAHAHAHA! BUUUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Well SLAP MY FACE

i got pretty excited when i heard about them using top=loaders in race cars but that is just Fords. i looked all over for some kind of shift kits for the muncie and there aint squat out there. lemmie know (pm me) if there is one. sam
 

·
Car? Truck? Who Cares
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
for what it is worth, I used a bell housing and slave from an 86 pickup in my 59. For ease of installing Iused the master from an 88.

the 86/7 trucks used a master that is mounted low on the firewall at about a 45* angle (vs the 88 that is at a 90*) to the firewall.

BE in your best interest to use a master from the 86/7, but these are a royal pain to get bled out. Even the 88 master, I have to raise the rear of the car to bleed it out.

All in all I prefer the hyd over the mechanical for ease of operation, and am considering this for my 79 C-10.

I believe the clutch pedal is different on the 86/7 trucks, not sure, but nothing that could not be worked out. The actuating rod is part of the master on these and connect directly to the pedal.

Bryan
 

·
HR VIOLATION
Joined
·
159 Posts
I used a Mcleod hyd. throwout bearing and a wilwood universal master cyl both purchased from summit racing. I used them on my ZZ502/Tko-600/lakewood bellhousing swap into my 66 chevelle. The Z bar setup wouldn't work without machining the clutch pivot ball into the side of the gen VI block.. anyway, I prefer the hyd feel to the mechanical, its a lot more precise with less "play" and it's about 50% easier to depress, especially with the centerforce dual friction clutch. I posted a few pics in my photo gallery of the assembly.

http://www.hotrodders.com/gallery/s...page/2/perpage/12/ppuser/15300/what/allfields

to answer your specific question, the hyd. conversion was pretty easy. It requires drilling through the firewall and fabricating a custom linkage from the pedal to the master cyl but it was easy, really. if you aren't into making some of your own parts, there are several bolt in kits available for many specific applications, but they are expensive, so I went the universal route to save $$
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I can look and measure the parts at the parts store for information sake without a purchase. And then go from there for fabrication, and decide.

I already have to remove the transmission hump and replace it with a 4WD hump, which I have several extras of, and then remove the TH-700R4, and driveshafts, and work on the small stuff afterward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
My '78 T/A has a mechanical clutch that used to have "sticking" problems when in use. I had solved that by making new linkage rods with Heim joints on the ends - *really* smoothed things out and made the clutch that much more responsive (the stock linkage rods had the pivot points worn down an 1/8"). Might be something to look into for anyone else with a mech. linkage. It could also simplify fabrication as well.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top