My 71 Duster work in progress
- Thread starter b-body-bob
- Start date
b-body-bob
Well-known member
It doesn't look right to me either, but at the same time, I remember the hump kind of had one place the contours lined up.
Also, chances of finding a photo like that taken randomly are probably kind of slim.
Also, chances of finding a photo like that taken randomly are probably kind of slim.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Ye of little faith.
I don't have the exact shot, but these four should illustrate that yeah, it's about right.
The shifter body leans forward a scosche and the shifter handle itself comes out of the mechanism at about a 30-degree angle. I never even looked at it in the manner you did, I just had faith that an A-body floor hump on A-body floorpans with an A-body would pan out in the end. It did, for the record.
If you haven't got a shifter already, get with me when the time comes. There's a whole bunch of bad information out there and identical-looking parts that don't actually interchange. I was probably under that Valiant more times just for the shifter than you've been under cars in your life (OK, that's an exaggeration but I went down there at least a couple dozen times just for the shifter).
I don't have the exact shot, but these four should illustrate that yeah, it's about right.
The shifter body leans forward a scosche and the shifter handle itself comes out of the mechanism at about a 30-degree angle. I never even looked at it in the manner you did, I just had faith that an A-body floor hump on A-body floorpans with an A-body would pan out in the end. It did, for the record.
If you haven't got a shifter already, get with me when the time comes. There's a whole bunch of bad information out there and identical-looking parts that don't actually interchange. I was probably under that Valiant more times just for the shifter than you've been under cars in your life (OK, that's an exaggeration but I went down there at least a couple dozen times just for the shifter).
b-body-bob
Well-known member
Good, thanks. I know at one time the car had a 4-speed in it. Not sure if it was this transmission, but for the record it's a 73 A-body trans, the shifter rods match those in the otherwise useless Passon book 
and it's got the correct shifter mount on it. I'm almost positive I checked the shifter part number and found it's for an A-body also.
I'm pretty sure it came with another shifter mount, which might explain why they felt the need to notch the x-member.
I wanted to figure this out before I put the column and seat back in it. And duh I just realized that I can't put the column back in it until I've put the k-frame with attached steering box back in.
FWIW I made do without a clutch safety switch by putting a switched ground under the dash to the starter relay. Probably should have just put a ground wire on the starter relay, but if something can be overthought, I'm the guy to do it.
and it's got the correct shifter mount on it. I'm almost positive I checked the shifter part number and found it's for an A-body also.I'm pretty sure it came with another shifter mount, which might explain why they felt the need to notch the x-member.
I wanted to figure this out before I put the column and seat back in it. And duh I just realized that I can't put the column back in it until I've put the k-frame with attached steering box back in.
FWIW I made do without a clutch safety switch by putting a switched ground under the dash to the starter relay. Probably should have just put a ground wire on the starter relay, but if something can be overthought, I'm the guy to do it.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Think of it as a passive security system.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
I had a switch in the A12 that grounded the ignition. Many times I would try to start it and wonder what was wrong before eventually realizing I forgot to flip the switch
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
An even-better shot I found in my thread. Note: That's not the correct shifter mount. That's for a 1966-'68 Inland reverse-trigger unit.
The 1968-'71 A-body Hurst shifter is the most-common one since it's the same as 1968-'70 B/C-body and the 1976-newer trucks with the A833OD. The truck shifter had a grease fitting in the side of the case. Yes, those parts also fit 1966-'67 B/C- and 1967 A-body, but none were built that way. That being said, the mechanism to have is the 1972-'75 A-body one, which uses a bolt-in handle rather than the slip-in "bayonet" style used in the other applications that interchange. The easiest way to identify the shifter is by the levers, with the reverse arm having a noticeable rear curvature. Here's my truck shifter on an A-/F-/M-body overdrive for my '68 Valiant:
I have since bought the parts from Brewer's to convert the shifter to a bolt-in handle. It's absolutely worth the effort and expense.
The only major difference on the overdrive setup is the 3-4 rod, but even that uses the same transmission lever. The factory transmission levers are stamped R, L, and D for reverse, 1-2 ("Low"), and 3-4 ("Direct") respectively. The stamped marks are exclusive to A/F/M series; no other model or make were stamped as such.
The aftermarket Hurst close-ratio shifter has a bolt-on handle, straight reverse arm, spacers between the shifter mount and trans, and uses different linkage rods and levers. I don't have the stamping numbers for the parts here, but if you've got a straight reverse arm. I believe that one may also use the 1964-'65 shifter mount, but I don't have the resources here to double-check.
The aftermarket Hurst overdrive setup was a needlessly-fussy arrangement using the same straight-reverse-arm mechanism, a mishmash of linkage parts from other applications, a unique 3-4 lever and reverse rod. I've been trying to assemble one for several years now. The two overdrive-only parts almost never appear on eBay--only one 3-4 lever (which I bought) and I've never seen the reverse rod for sale anywhere.
The irony is that the aftermarket close-ratio setup fits and works on the overdrive if you simply flip the 3-4 arm:
I have more f__kin' Hurst linkage parts (especially A-body) than I'd care to admit, so if you find yourself in need let me know. I'll dig through Ye Olde Linkaje Bocks and see what appears. Also, double-check the stamping number on the shifter mount. There are a couple that look identical but don't interchange, and the 1964-'65 mount doesn't play nice with the later shifter mechanism and handle.
The 1968-'71 A-body Hurst shifter is the most-common one since it's the same as 1968-'70 B/C-body and the 1976-newer trucks with the A833OD. The truck shifter had a grease fitting in the side of the case. Yes, those parts also fit 1966-'67 B/C- and 1967 A-body, but none were built that way. That being said, the mechanism to have is the 1972-'75 A-body one, which uses a bolt-in handle rather than the slip-in "bayonet" style used in the other applications that interchange. The easiest way to identify the shifter is by the levers, with the reverse arm having a noticeable rear curvature. Here's my truck shifter on an A-/F-/M-body overdrive for my '68 Valiant:
I have since bought the parts from Brewer's to convert the shifter to a bolt-in handle. It's absolutely worth the effort and expense.
The only major difference on the overdrive setup is the 3-4 rod, but even that uses the same transmission lever. The factory transmission levers are stamped R, L, and D for reverse, 1-2 ("Low"), and 3-4 ("Direct") respectively. The stamped marks are exclusive to A/F/M series; no other model or make were stamped as such.
The aftermarket Hurst close-ratio shifter has a bolt-on handle, straight reverse arm, spacers between the shifter mount and trans, and uses different linkage rods and levers. I don't have the stamping numbers for the parts here, but if you've got a straight reverse arm. I believe that one may also use the 1964-'65 shifter mount, but I don't have the resources here to double-check.
The aftermarket Hurst overdrive setup was a needlessly-fussy arrangement using the same straight-reverse-arm mechanism, a mishmash of linkage parts from other applications, a unique 3-4 lever and reverse rod. I've been trying to assemble one for several years now. The two overdrive-only parts almost never appear on eBay--only one 3-4 lever (which I bought) and I've never seen the reverse rod for sale anywhere.
The irony is that the aftermarket close-ratio setup fits and works on the overdrive if you simply flip the 3-4 arm:
I have more f__kin' Hurst linkage parts (especially A-body) than I'd care to admit, so if you find yourself in need let me know. I'll dig through Ye Olde Linkaje Bocks and see what appears. Also, double-check the stamping number on the shifter mount. There are a couple that look identical but don't interchange, and the 1964-'65 mount doesn't play nice with the later shifter mechanism and handle.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
Yep, there it is. Even down to the notch in the framework.
My shifter has the bolt in handle.
As for the linkage, I found a photo and the reverse rod is not straight. Another thing I should note is once I got it out of two gears and the sliders positioned right, I was able to bang through the gears. That kinda sorta seems to mean the linkage rods have to be right for the shifter and trans, right?
Here are some of the photos. Warning - it might have been in two gears at this point, and at the time I was more interested in figuring out what I had, than I was with figuring out if it would work.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
The reverse rod is never straight... it's the reverse arm on the shifter that may or may not be. However, it looks like you've got everything from the same car except the bellhousing. One can't ask for much more than that. The only downside to the '71-up transmissions (to me) is the lever-type interlock used on the side cover to prevent engaging two gears at once. It's not particularly effective--I had that problem in my Challenger in 1988--and it makes it much more of a pain in the ass to service. By no means is it a "I won't use it" arrangment, because obviously I have the same thing on the overdrive pictured above. The later transmissions moved the reverse detent to the side of the case, with its spring in the side cover (another service PITA) so I can't even retrofit the older side cover. Your transmission will accept the double-ball
I would make an attempt to find a different bellhousing, though. I have that bell on my Valiant, and I strongly dislike it. Yeah, it's less hassle than losing a foot, but unlike me I don't think you're planning on 4,500+RPM clutch dumps. I've no intention of ever using my other Lakewood, which came free with my Hemi 4-speed.
I would make an attempt to find a different bellhousing, though. I have that bell on my Valiant, and I strongly dislike it. Yeah, it's less hassle than losing a foot, but unlike me I don't think you're planning on 4,500+RPM clutch dumps. I've no intention of ever using my other Lakewood, which came free with my Hemi 4-speed.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
Um ... that is a big block bell. The car also came with a heavy cast iron job from the early 60s.
I've got an aluminum sb bell and inspection cover all painted up ready to go.
I've used those bells on big blocks before because the factory aluminum bells tended to crack radially from side to side. I had one break going down the road one day. Good times.
Since I mentioned paint ... the paint on the waterpump continues to blister and peel Never paint those unless they have a rough surface. This one looked like it was polished. Hitting it with a scotchbrite and etching primer didn't help in the end. I may end up buying another one because I'll never get all the paint off this one.
I've got an aluminum sb bell and inspection cover all painted up ready to go.
I've used those bells on big blocks before because the factory aluminum bells tended to crack radially from side to side. I had one break going down the road one day. Good times.
Since I mentioned paint ... the paint on the waterpump continues to blister and peel Never paint those unless they have a rough surface. This one looked like it was polished. Hitting it with a scotchbrite and etching primer didn't help in the end. I may end up buying another one because I'll never get all the paint off this one.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Well, there's no way I could've known that from the pictures. Can't see the top of it.
Were it actually polished, I don't find that surprising. Polish can work its way into the metal and make it virtually impossible to hold paint, even after scuffing. However, I had similar results with my Chinesium fabricated valve covers, which weren't polished per se but had very light extrusion marks or brushing. The paint leapt off those, which reminded me why I've spent so much of my life baking aluminum parts prior to etch-priming them.
On the flip side, the paint has tenaciously hung onto my timing cover, which is a smooth die casting but isn't polished. That's not even engine paint, either. It's Rust-Oleum equipment enamel, whereas I'd used Krylon on the valve covers. I've had about a 95% failure rate with Krylon over the past decade, be it terrible spray pattern, horrific overspray, color-fastness or durability. I don't even bother with it anymore. The guys at my paint supplier claim they'd be retired if they had a dollar for every complaint about Krylon in the same time frame.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
I think it was less about polish in the material than it is about there not being any "teeth" for paint to grab onto. It was slick shiny and I had a feeling this was going to happen and think I mentioned it before but just take my word for it and avoid 80 pages of looking and not finding.
Anyway consider all the ridges and corners on a water pump that you could scuff at all you want and never get the pad on them, and I think that explains it.
The orange stuck to the primer but the primer didn't stick to the metal..
Anyway consider all the ridges and corners on a water pump that you could scuff at all you want and never get the pad on them, and I think that explains it.
The orange stuck to the primer but the primer didn't stick to the metal..
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Yep, same thing with my valve covers. The paint flakes off with the primer on the back of it. I'm just going to go ahead and sand/beadblast 'em to get it all off, then bake/etch-prime and repaint them, probably with something silly like black wrinkle. I'm far less in love with them now than I was when ordering 10+ years ago. I'm now far more enamored with factory valve covers than most of the aftermarket offerings, though I still find the Moroso fabricated LA covers drool-worthy. Too bad the price is outlandish.
Anything and everything aluminum on my Challenger engine will get baked first, including the Six Pack intake.
Anything and everything aluminum on my Challenger engine will get baked first, including the Six Pack intake.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
I wish I could get away with bead blasting the water pump but I'm not going to even try that.
I'm just not going to paint anything aluminum unless it's rough cast, so valve covers and water pumps are excluded. It's doubtful I'll paint an aluminum intake either. Definitely not the RPM Air gap on this motor (why would I) and probably not the 6-pack intake for the A12 either.
I'm just not going to paint anything aluminum unless it's rough cast, so valve covers and water pumps are excluded. It's doubtful I'll paint an aluminum intake either. Definitely not the RPM Air gap on this motor (why would I) and probably not the 6-pack intake for the A12 either.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I'm not a huge fan of raw aluminum, personally. It stains too easily and makes the engine look like a slapdash assembly. I also don't want it to look like a race engine; why tip my hat or raise expectations? That's just me.
Of course, an A12 engine would've had its manifold painted with the rest of the engine, but to each his own. I'm going one worse, since my Challenger is a '74. I'm replicating what a post-'71 Six Pack engine would've looked like, something borne out by the few existing geniune '72 multi-carb 440 cars: Corporate Blue, with the only orange part being the air-cleaner lid. Kevin shudders at the thought; I think it'll be both unique and as "correct looking" as possible.
Of course, an A12 engine would've had its manifold painted with the rest of the engine, but to each his own. I'm going one worse, since my Challenger is a '74. I'm replicating what a post-'71 Six Pack engine would've looked like, something borne out by the few existing geniune '72 multi-carb 440 cars: Corporate Blue, with the only orange part being the air-cleaner lid. Kevin shudders at the thought; I think it'll be both unique and as "correct looking" as possible.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
The wiring is all in place so I adjusted the rockers today. I think I measured wrong and the pushrods are kind of short. I've got one that I ain't gonna be able to get preload on, some that I think I can get preload on, and some that I know I can. It's kind of odd that they're all kind of different but not surprising really.
Yeah there it is.
It's adjusted to zero lash as best as I can do it. I lubed the pushrod so turning it isn't all that helpful, but I kind of shook it around and tried to get all the adjustment out of it that way.
I wonder if there is any profit to be had in swapping ones that are longish with the shorter ones?
Yeah there it is.
It's adjusted to zero lash as best as I can do it. I lubed the pushrod so turning it isn't all that helpful, but I kind of shook it around and tried to get all the adjustment out of it that way.
I wonder if there is any profit to be had in swapping ones that are longish with the shorter ones?
Last edited:
b-body-bob
Well-known member
I double checked that one, and gave it another 3/4 turn. There was room. Gave the rest of them 3/4 turn but forgot to double check them so I'm going to go back and check them again.
Acetone came to the rescue again yesterday on the water pump. The paint didn't seem to be stuck at all anywhere and it just just curled up and wiped off. Need to attack it with some q-tips in the corners but it's 99% shiny again.
Acetone came to the rescue again yesterday on the water pump. The paint didn't seem to be stuck at all anywhere and it just just curled up and wiped off. Need to attack it with some q-tips in the corners but it's 99% shiny again.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
It would give you more adjustment in terms of what's above the rocker, but you won't gain anything beneath (which you don't want anyhow).
It looks to me like you measured just fine, though I don't remember what your measurement was. You should have about a thread to 1.5 thread below. I recently found a set of NOS Mopar Performance pushrods for sale for just such an application, and they were 7.23" long. Being that they were in 1980s-style packaging, I'm guessing that was long ago enough that they still knew their stuff.
b-body-bob
Well-known member
Since I was just looking at the notes, these are 7.08 EFFECTIVE length. My checking pushrod was 7-1/4 end-to-end.
I'm still a little confused why I was able to just order standard big-block pushrods and install them with crane rockers, but the small block didn't work that way.
But yeah I think I'm going to be OK. That one is the worst case and it's basically screwed down flat against the top of the rocker but 3/4 turn from 0 preload.
I'm still a little confused why I was able to just order standard big-block pushrods and install them with crane rockers, but the small block didn't work that way.
But yeah I think I'm going to be OK. That one is the worst case and it's basically screwed down flat against the top of the rocker but 3/4 turn from 0 preload.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I assume you mean on a 440? The pushrod cup height on the big-block lifters changed after 1967, so 1968 pushrods won't fit a 1967 engine assuming you've got factory-issue lifters. Since nobody's made the '67-older pushrods or lifters in probably 40+ years, the odds of running into said issue are fairly thin. Everything superseded to the '68-up design--a.k.a. the small-block lifter--decades ago. What are the dimensions? I dunno. They're probably somewhere in my brain case but I can't access them at the moment. Either way, the solid lifters didn't change at the same time since the only mechanical-cam production engines Chrysler built after 1962 or so were either limited-production race engines or Slant Sixes.
What's confusing to me? Standard big-block pushrods don't have cup ends, which Crane rockers require.
Regardless, on the LA engines the only hydraulic-lifter application with adjustable rockers were the 340 Six Pack engines. The pushrods, of course, are completely unique to that engine, not only because of the difference in pushrod cup depth betwixt solid and hydraulic, but because the T/A rockers used a longer, locknut-style adjuster on a spot-faced arm rather than the 273's interference-fit design. The MP ones I mentioned above (P4529542) are technically for the T/A engine. They actually cross-reference to the original T/A rocker number, as well an aftermarket number: Melling MPR-157, which is still available and backward-catalogs to the Six Pack engine. The Melling shows the same 7.23" length in its specs, too. Does that make it the perfect pushrod, then? Not really. Between production variances, castings being milled/resurfaced over the decades, rocker/adjuster wear, etc. they could be a mile off. Measuring for your specific engine is still the best method. If you did that and lash/preload the valves correctly--something you probably should redo immediately after the cam break-in--you should be golden.