My 71 Duster work in progress

[b-body-bob]

Needs about $60 more paint and about an hour and a half of my time going to get it. The guy told me it would take 4 so I'm the idiot here. I had that misguided idea of spraying over the existing blue and thought it would take less paint that way.



That's two cans of primer, two cans of color, no sanding. I can still see the green of the primer shining through so maybe spraying over the blue would've saved some paint after all. It was just too banged up to do that, although I didn't do a lot of heavy sanding either.

The cans were maddening, my spray handle fit them but wanted to rotate to where it was spraying inside that thing. I ended up with drips on the driver's apron because of that.

Other than that I'm pretty happy with it so far.

Gina says that's not B5. I disagree. It's got a lot of flake in it. It was kind of neat the first time I noticed it floating in the air when the light hits it just right.

 

[b-body-bob]

Yes I know it looks like I took the photo with an electron scanning microscope - but these syncros are bad, yes? I hope they look like that because of the slider not being totally out of the way. But, probably not. There are others that are still pointed but the point is worn more in one direction than the other.



Those teeth on the non-brass parts look kinda beat up too. That could be because of my electron scanning camera making it look worse than it is.

 

[RUSTY Cuda]

Bay looks good, as for the syncros, I have no idea how bad is livable?

 

[b-body-bob]

The sore spot of this transmission is I don't know if it had anything wrong with it the last time it was installed.

I've got a press and have rebuilt them before but if there's no reason to tear it down, I won't. But I think those are worn flat and that's not a good thing.

Of course I might not even be using the right name - I'm talking about the brass but the steel part there with it doesn't look all that hot to me either.

 

[b-body-bob]

Bought paint this AM and will finish up with that tonight. The transmission has to be figured out and parts purchased before I finish the engine.

 

[Dr.Jass]

That looks like B5 to me... 1971 B5, anyhow. As discussed, there are three. Engine bay looks good, but yeah... it definitely needs more coats. Are you sure that's not base? It looks like it's either a very dry spray or it's a basecoat.

Nothing wrong with those sychronizer rings. What you can't see easily with your ultra-close-up shot is that the very ends of the teeth are slightly under the slider, hidden in shadow. They're not a'tall blunt. If you look at the upper most two teeth that are more visible in profile, Ansel, they still have plenty of their original shape. Looking at it again, the teeth near the bottom show the same thing. It's an optical illusion.
Contrary to popular belief, synchro ring teeth are not supposed to be razor sharp. That's actually a sign of wear. I've re-used worse in any case with no ill effects.
As far as the beat-up edges on the slider and reverser, especially the reverser, it's not worthy of attention. The reverser is always beat to death since it's an unsynchronized straight-cut gear, and the sliders lead a fairly rough life. In either case, I wouldn't take the transmission apart.
My experience with A833s, by and large, is that unless you see something physically damaged or have a bad bearing, there's no good reason to rip them apart. 90% of them that I've rebuilt needed nothing, and the other 10% needed nothing more than bearings, seals, and a gasket. They're ridiculously rugged transmissions. If you ever get a look inside a Muncie or B-W T-10/Super T-10, the word that'll pop into your head is "adorable"... "It's like a transmission, but smaller!"
Factory recommendation on the fill is straight 80W. The overdrives, which were virtually the same transmission internally, used ATF (Dex/Merc). If you're not driving it in winter or cold weather, 80W-90 is fine. Below about 20°F, shifting with the gear oil is like trying to stir concrete with a paint stick. If you plan to drive it in the winter and it'll sit outside, definitely go with Dex/Merc.

 

[b-body-bob]

It's looking up after one more can, but stupid me used that spray handle again and yep I got drips on the other apron. So now they match I guess. I've got another can so this time I am going to just use my finger and giterdun.

It's a dry spray, I think because it's just a spray bomb so it isn't throwing out a heavy coat like a spray gun would. If that bothers you, wait until you see all the divots in it where I refused to take it to bare metal. I would've ended up with the whole damn car sandblasted if I didn't control my urge. It's definitely better than it was and that's good enough for me.

Speaking of resisting urges, I'm fighting the urge to tear that transmission apart. I'd rather just throw a gasket under the side plate and a seal in the extension and call it ready to run. But part of me keeps thinking yeah it *looks* OK but those bearings are going to howl, etc. OTOH pulling a 4-speed isn't as involved as pulling an AT so if it has to come back out, such is life.

 

[Dr.Jass]

It's a dry spray, I think because it's just a spray bomb so it isn't throwing out a heavy coat like a spray gun would. If that bothers you, wait until you see all the divots in it where I refused to take it to bare metal. I would've ended up with the whole damn car sandblasted if I didn't control my urge. It's definitely better than it was and that's good enough for me.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just wondering why a single stage paint has virtually no gloss. It should shine gloriously as if applied from the heavens themselves.

Paint doesn't bother me. I drove a flat-black half-wrecked '72 Charger SE--which was ugly enough from the factory--for more than two years. In fact, I plan to leave the '71 Challenger flat black for the foreseeable future.

 

[b-body-bob]

The 3rd can improved the gloss. Remember that I did not sand the primer at all and you can see it through the blue so yep, it wasn't real glossy.

I 've got no plans to paint this car but I mostly thought I should put a little effort into cleaning it up while the engine and all are out because that should never have to come out again if the cam break in goes well.

I'm likely to need to paint it in a year or two because what little paint it's got on it is thin and showing some surface rust. One fender and one quarter are just electroplate or whatever they call that black AMD coating and the rest of it is spray bomb primer. If I have my way about it I will buy a case of hot red red primer and go to town on it.

 

[Dr.Jass]

One fender and one quarter are just electroplate or whatever they call that black AMD coating and the rest of it is spray bomb primer.

It's called electro-deposit primer, or just EDP by most. It's scant protection at best. It's not an AMD thing by any measure, though. Sheetmetal was being coated with EDP before Headrick even started Goodmark, never mind AMD.

 

[b-body-bob]

The last coat is on, it shined up some. I'm satisfied even with the drips. You can still see the last of those when the light hits it right but that's OK.

 

[b-body-bob]

Brewer's part summary

Basically there's $100 difference between buying all the parts I need to make the factory mechanical clutch work and a hydraulic setup. General need parts are there no matter what style linkage or clutch I go with (bolts, etc) I bought the flywheel from the machine shop so they could balance the rotating parts.

Group​	​	​
0​	General need​	268.05​
1​	Factory style clutch​	398.70​
2​	Hydraulic setup​	499.00​
3​	Centerforce kit​	529.95​
4​	McLeod kit​	355.00​
5​	Trans bearing rebuild​	109.95​
6​	Trans syncros & shafts​	79.90​
7​	Flywheel​	395.00​
​	Total, all combinations​	2,635.55​
​	​	​
​	General parts, factory clutch, Centerforce​	1,196.70​
​	General parts, hydraulic clutch, Centerforce​	1,297.00​
​	General parts, factory clutch, McLeod​	1,021.75​
​	General parts, hydraulic clutch, McLeod​	1,122.05​
​	Add trans bearing rebuild​	109.95​
​	Add complete trans rebuild​	189.85​

​

​

​

 

[b-body-bob]

Another question in mind right now - recall the rear end was mistakenly built with a small yoke on it. I would like to go to the large u-joints now. It's a 489 case so it should have a crush sleeve. How big of a deal is it to change the yoke?

I doubt me getting it done under the car, but there's only about 30 nuts between me and having the center section out.

 

[Dr.Jass]

Still trying to grasp what advantage a hydraulic clutch presents. If you go with a CenterFarce or other diaphragm clutch, it'll be so ridiculously light that any further attempt to lower pedal effort would literally be a detriment. I think I've mentioned already that the 2,800lb Borg & Beck in my '69 is a very light pedal with factory linkage and the over-center spring. Better feel than my old 4x4 Dakota (hydraulic and diaphragm) but certainly no more effort... maybe even less.

As far as changing the yoke, technically Chrysler says the crush sleeve needs to be replaced every time the yoke is removed. I have successfully re-used them when changing yokes by measuring the turning (rotating) torque of the differential before disassembly. After installing the new yoke, I torqued the nut until I was 5-10 lb/in over the previous measurement. I did this on the bench, not in the car, but my thought is that the axle shafts would merely increase the overall initial turning torque measurement, but the same increase in tension would still apply.

If you've never set up a 489 case (or 8.25/9.25, which also use a crush sleeve), that's how the "crush" is determined initially. The yoke nut initially gets torqued to 225lb/ft. Further torque is applied until a particular turning torque is achieved on the pinion alone... something like 8-10lb/in for used bearings and 20 for new bearings. Those number are using a new nut, of course, which is also "one use only". I try to always use a new nut but have, in moments of dire need, used red threadlocker on a used nut. I've sorta disregarded the initial torque spec anyhow and just shot for the right turning torque for many years. My DeWalt 110V impact, circa 2000, is perfect for this job. Crank the nut until it stops turning freely, then start again. By the end of a "one thousand three" count, the turning torque is virtually perfect every time... +/- 1lb/in. Ain't had one blow up yet.

 

[b-body-bob]

Advantage to hydro is no monkeying around with z-bar fitment with headers in an A-body. Also, I see the way Gina hobbles around, and have her in mind also. She complains about the Dakota but I think that's mostly because it's not a new Hemi Ram.

The car is largely blown apart in the driver's area, column is out, seat is all but out just sitting there, no brake MC so it would be easy to change at this point if a person was so inclined.

Seems like hydro adds a hassle if I ever need to drop the trans because I would have to disco the hoses first. I think so, anyway.

I've set up one 489, but I had to set it up from scratch and just used a solid spacer and shims.

I've got a decent 1/2" HF air impact and a big ass compressor so I might try that thing you do. I have a 3/8" beam type torque wrench already to measure the turning torque with also.

Need to look up the driveshaft spec for a 4-speed too - it's got to be longer than the 727.

 

[Dr.Jass]

Advantage to hydro is no monkeying around with z-bar fitment with headers in an A-body.

Never ran into a fitment issue with a Z-bar and headers, and I have 1-7/8" tubes. Clearance for days. The only time I've ever seen problems was with column shifters. TTi said a modified Z-bar was required to clear their W2 headers. Everything in the car is factory-stock parts and there's plenty of clearance.

Also, I see the way Gina hobbles around, and have her in mind also. She complains about the Dakota but I think that's mostly because it's not a new Hemi Ram.

Again, with a 2,800lb B&B plate in my '69 Valiant, the pedal is as light or lighter than the one in my own Dakota. A diaphragm clutch is much, much easier, even after you remove the over-center spring. I would definitely try that before wasting money on non-serviceable hydraulic linkage. You gain no mechanical advantage and there are no header clearance issues to solve.

Seems like hydro adds a hassle if I ever need to drop the trans because I would have to disco the hoses first. I think so, anyway.

Probably not. Once you slide the transmission out, the throwout bearing can be removed through the fork hole in the bell and left hanging by its hoses. Many hydraulic setups don't have removable hoses at that end.

For the record: Getting the transmission in or out while it's bolted to the bellhousing? Cancel that fallacy right now if you're entertaining it. I learned that lesson at 17 on a car with a lot more clearance. It's way easier to drop the trans off the bell and work from there... waaaaaaay easier.

I've got a decent 1/2" HF air impact and a big ass compressor so I might try that thing you do.

That impact has far too much power. The DeWalt electric is a weakling. I think it maxes at 225lb/ft. Just guessing, but trying that trick with an air tool would probably lock the pinion or possibly crack a race. If you can get your mitts on a 110V electric impact, give 'er. I don't think any of 'em are much more gutsy than the others.

Need to look up the driveshaft spec for a 4-speed too - it's got to be longer than the 727.

48.96" for the 4-speed, 44.99" for the A727. Those are the lengths for the 7260 (small) U-joint and 8¾" axle--after 1969, A-bodies only got 7260 joints. The '68-'69 Barracuda (same wheelbase) with a 340/A833, 8¾", and 7290 joints used a 48.60" shaft... so the joints don't make much of a difference, but there was a difference.

 

[b-body-bob]

Never ran into a fitment issue with a Z-bar and headers, and I have 1-7/8" tubes. Clearance for days. The only time I've ever seen problems was with column shifters. TTi said a modified Z-bar was required to clear their W2 headers. Everything in the car is factory-stock parts and there's plenty of clearance.

I found several people who had to modify the z-bar to work with TTI. TTI actually sells a pre-modified z-bar that shifts everything toward the engine/transmission. I didn't find any internet blather that exonerates Doug's headers from having problems. There seems to be a guy who posts the TTI modified z-bar in every thread where someone asks no matter what kind of headers they are asking about.

Again, with a 2,800lb B&B plate in my '69 Valiant, the pedal is as light or lighter than the one in my own Dakota. A diaphragm clutch is much, much easier, even after you remove the over-center spring. I would definitely try that before wasting money on non-serviceable hydraulic linkage. You gain no mechanical advantage and there are no header clearance issues to solve.

I've run diaphragm clutches before. No argument there other than the potential for header interference. Which, FWIW, is a strong argument for installing from the bottom. If there's going to be a problem, I'll know it before anything is in the car.

Probably not. Once you slide the transmission out, the throwout bearing can be removed through the fork hole in the bell and left hanging by its hoses. Many hydraulic setups don't have removable hoses at that end.

I thought placing the TO on the bearing retainer was a more precise job than that - yes I know the hoses have to be discoed at the firewall end of things.

For the record: Getting the transmission in or out while it's bolted to the bellhousing? Cancel that fallacy right now if you're entertaining it. I learned that lesson at 17 on a car with a lot more clearance. It's way easier to drop the trans off the bell and work from there... waaaaaaay easier.

Oh god no. Only a weirdo would even try that.

That impact has far too much power. The DeWalt electric is a weakling. I think it maxes at 225lb/ft. Just guessing, but trying that trick with an air tool would probably lock the pinion or possibly crack a race. If you can get your mitts on a 110V electric impact, give 'er. I don't think any of 'em are much more gutsy than the others.

Yeah I just looked - the equivalent there today has 1000 lb/ft. Scratch that.

I've got a 20v craftsman 3/8" but that's not going to do the job. I can always drop it out and try to do it manually, but not sure how I'd hold it to torque it though or for that matter how I'd use a torque wrench with a 4' cheater between me and the handle

48.96" for the 4-speed, 44.99" for the A727. Those are the lengths for the 7260 (small) U-joint and 8¾" axle--after 1969, A-bodies only got 7260 joints. The '68-'69 Barracuda (same wheelbase) with a 340/A833, 8¾", and 7290 joints used a 48.60" shaft... so the joints don't make much of a difference, but there was a difference.

Thanks for looking that up. Now I'm wondering if I need to mess with changing the pinion yoke at all. If a 7260 was good enough for the factory in 70 and 71 it ought to be good enough for my weak ass 360.

 

[Dr.Jass]

I know about the TTi Z-bar; they insisted I needed one so of course I said, "I have a welder." I didn't have to use it, though--everything cleared by a mile. The only thing different or specific about my setup is that I'm using 6-banger conversion mounts and a God-forsaken Lakewood bellhousing. If anything, the conversion mounts put the engine closer to the driver's side, since we had to put a 3/16" shim between the mount and the insulator to get exactly 3/16" clearance between the header and the manual steering box. The Lakewood uses the stock fork in the stock location, so that shouldn't have moved anything either. My headers are the narrow (factory) bolt-pattern W2s, so the primaries start in the same place and end in the same place. I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I can't figure it out looking at my car. I have a lot of photos of the underside of that critter for other reasons, but the countershaft is visible in many of 'em. Seriously, it's not even close.

My throwout bearing was left hanging from the clutch fork the last time I had the transmission out. It self-aligns as the input shaft and bearing retainer pass through it. Easy as lasagna. Whether or not the hydro unit actually clips to the fork like the factory bearing, I have no idea.

That Craftsman impact might get you where you need to be. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that can do 225lb/ft. A friend has a much-larger Milwaukee that has a both a torso strap and a big-ass handle for your non-trigger hand to keep it from flipping you ass over teakettle when you're on it. Granted, it's a 1" drive, but it's a Milwaukee M18--only 18V. If it didn't ramp up to speed, it'd fling you like a rag doll.

I had my driveshaft built with 7290s, but I also have to launch the car at 4,500+ with gooey tires. I think if you have/find a good shaft, a set of Spicer Life non-greasable U-joints will last an eternity (Spicer part #5-789X). People always specify greasable joints, which are designed to leak grease when they get lubed. Non-greasable joints are far stronger and it takes a ton of effort just to pull the caps off, they're sealed so well. Lube ain't getting out, and dirt ain't getting in either. It's quality you can feel. When I told the guy at the driveshaft shop what kind of silliness was involved, that was the first thing he specified. "You need the strongest joints you can get." I've bought quite a bit of stuff from Northern Drivetrain over the years; it's a small outfit in WI that does a fantastic job. Gabe has found me stuff even I couldn't reliably find without his help (US-made 308L bearings for A833s, for instance--NOS of course, so I bought a stack of 'em). He ain't the cheapest, but he's great at his job and his customer service is second to none. He's also a hoot in conversation. If anyone can tell you the value of Spicer Life joints, Gabe's the guy. He's not only a hardcore off-roader, he tried to be smarter than Spicer by making a Spicer Life greasable once. The resultant disaster was pretty humorous. He hydraulically locked his grease gun because nothing would come past those seals. There was so much hydraulic force, he couldn't remove the hose from the grease fitting or open the gun to release the pressure. He had to cut the hose. Long story a little longer, he had a mess on his hands. He's also pretty sure none of that grease actually got into the U-joint. I'll pay a little more to support someone like Gabe.

 

[b-body-bob]

The u-joints on it how have a grease fitting in the cap, not in the cross but they're greasable so they're still hollow.

The thing I don't like about them are the straps and bolts, regardless the actual joint used. I had a time getting them tight enough and was never sure they were. I ran out of room to turn the wrench and there was no way I was getting a box end or socket on it, all because the strap is in the way.

With the mountainous power of that 400 unable to even spin a tire, that didn't worry me after a few miles.

I would be a lot happier with u-bolts, or maybe a taller bolt head to where I could actually tighten the thing up and know it's tight. Maybe I can find just the bolts to take care of it.

 

[Dr.Jass]

The thing I don't like about them are the straps and bolts, regardless the actual joint used. I had a time getting them tight enough and was never sure they were. I ran out of room to turn the wrench and there was no way I was getting a box end or socket on it, all because the strap is in the way.

I looked at the strap kit on my shelf, and it has slightly-undersize heads on the bolts, but I can still see it being a concern. Check out Dorman #81006, which uses a very-undersize hex on a washer-head bolt. You'd definitely have better wrench clearance, although a lot of times the driveshaft itself won't allow using a ratchet/socket on the head.

Most of the Precision (Moog) kits I carry use bolts like the Dorman one, but on this particular application that's not the case.