Automatic verses Standard starters
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Likes: 1
From: Eastern Ohio!
Car: Mystifying 1989 TBI Camaro.
Engine: 1992 350 Truck Engine. TBI
Transmission: 700R4 when it wants to be.
Axle/Gears: 2.73
Automatic verses Standard starters
I'm wondering if there is a large difference between a starter for an automatic or standard?
I am apparently having a hot soak problem and was pricing them online and noticed they are different models and prices.
They pretty much look the same though.
I am apparently having a hot soak problem and was pricing them online and noticed they are different models and prices.
They pretty much look the same though.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,736
Likes: 14
From: Not in Kansas anymore
Car: 82 Z28
Engine: 383 SP EFI/ 4150 TB
Transmission: T400
Axle/Gears: QP 9" 3.73
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
153 or 168 tooth
Most aftermarket Mini starter will fit both styles.There are no auto or manual starters
Read
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech...-failures.html
Last edited by vetteoz; Jul 18, 2010 at 03:07 AM.
Supreme Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,192
Likes: 19
From: Cary, North Carolina
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: Carbed 350
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
Have you tested all the other possibilities with the starter circuit? Chances are it's NOT the starter- my starter was touching my headers for 3 years, never had any heat soak issues with it - heat soak is a thing of the past - test and retest the entire starter circuit first. austinthirdgen.org has a great wite-up in their tech articles.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 43,187
Likes: 43
From: Littleton, CO USA
Car: 82 Berlinetta/57 Bel Air
Engine: L92/LQ4 (both w/4" stroke)
Transmission: 4L80E/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 12B-3.73/9"-3.89
As I understand it, a manual starter will work on an auto car, but an auto starter will not work on a manual car. In 3rd gens, they are all 153-teeth, so that isn't the difference.
I solved my "heat soak" problem with a remote starter solenoid.
I solved my "heat soak" problem with a remote starter solenoid.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Likes: 1
From: Eastern Ohio!
Car: Mystifying 1989 TBI Camaro.
Engine: 1992 350 Truck Engine. TBI
Transmission: 700R4 when it wants to be.
Axle/Gears: 2.73
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
Have you tested all the other possibilities with the starter circuit? Chances are it's NOT the starter- my starter was touching my headers for 3 years, never had any heat soak issues with it - heat soak is a thing of the past - test and retest the entire starter circuit first. austinthirdgen.org has a great wite-up in their tech articles.
In the meantime, I'm exchanging the starter tomorrow since it's under warranty. My last starter didn't do this, so I'll see how well another does.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,499
Likes: 31
From: Macon, GA
Car: 1992 Camaro RS
Engine: Vortec headed 355, xe262
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.70
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
2. My old 700r4 automatic starter was not a ministarter and had serious heatsoak problems if the car had been running more than about 5-10 minutes. It didnt have a problem with the 305. It didnt have a problem with the 305 and the long tube headers. It only had a problem after the 350 swap. More heat, more compression... I odnt know what it was, but it'd need about 10 minutes to cool back down before it would turn the engine over fast enough to start reliably. I tried wrapping it with insulation and I also did a remote solenoid. The insulation helped a wee bit, but not enough to make the problem tolerable. It was still dead in the water for a few minutes. The remote(Ford) solenoid did absolutely NOTHING for me. The useless insulation helped more than the solenoid.
To the OP, if you want my solenoid, you can have it, $20 shipped. I recommend you just get a newer ministarter though. They're more than worth it. The engine turns over so much faster it cranks MUCH easier. Then there's the weight savings, and then no more heat soak. It's awesome. Or you can add a remote solenoid that may or may not work.
Last edited by InfernalVortex; Jul 19, 2010 at 12:58 AM.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Likes: 1
From: Eastern Ohio!
Car: Mystifying 1989 TBI Camaro.
Engine: 1992 350 Truck Engine. TBI
Transmission: 700R4 when it wants to be.
Axle/Gears: 2.73
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
need about 10 minutes to cool back down before it would turn the engine over fast enough to start reliably. I tried wrapping it with insulation and I also did a remote solenoid. The insulation helped a wee bit, but not enough to make the problem tolerable. It was still dead in the water for a few minutes. The remote(Ford) solenoid did absolutely NOTHING for me. The useless insulation helped more than the solenoid.
To the OP, if you want my solenoid, you can have it, $20 shipped. I recommend you just get a newer ministarter though. They're more than worth it. The engine turns over so much faster it cranks MUCH easier. Then there's the weight savings, and then no more heat soak. It's awesome. Or you can add a remote solenoid that may or may not work.
Trending Topics
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,364
Likes: 51
From: Enschede, Netherlands
Car: 82 TA 87 IZ L98 88 IZ LB9 88 IZ L98
Engine: 5.7TBI 5,7TPI 5.0TPI, 5,7TPI
Transmission: T5, 700R4, T5, 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.08, 3.27, 3.45, 3.27
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
Exactly, the problem is the snout. It's different and won't fit on the bellhousing.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Likes: 1
From: Eastern Ohio!
Car: Mystifying 1989 TBI Camaro.
Engine: 1992 350 Truck Engine. TBI
Transmission: 700R4 when it wants to be.
Axle/Gears: 2.73
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
The starter was cracked on the aluminum housing.
My battery also went bad.
Talk about coincidences.
My battery also went bad.
Talk about coincidences.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 5
From: Moorestown, NJ
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
I have a pre-86 motor w/ a TKO that will ONLY work with the metric FWD/standard starter. They actually work fairly well when they're 100%, but Ive found that they periodically need to be rebuilt. The thing that causes this is dirty conacts at the solenoid, and oxidation on the commutator. If you let it go, it gets to the point where the car just wont turn over. You might want to also check the backlash between teh starter pinion/flywheel ring gear. If its too close, the bendix will get stuck half-way due to lack of clearance and the starter will not engage, causing a no-start. This can also be the cause of cracked starter housings.
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Likes: 1
From: Eastern Ohio!
Car: Mystifying 1989 TBI Camaro.
Engine: 1992 350 Truck Engine. TBI
Transmission: 700R4 when it wants to be.
Axle/Gears: 2.73
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
The starter was cracked and the battery also went bad, which is weird.
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: owasso ok.
Car: 1992 camaro rs
Engine: sbc 305
Transmission: t5
Axle/Gears: 3.08
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
i bought a Summit Racing SUM-829100 - Summit Racing® Mini High-Torque Starters for a 111 works like a charm befor i went through 6 in 5 months
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: SoCali
Car: 1989 Pontiac Firebird Formula
Engine: V8 5.0 305 TBI
Transmission: 700R4 with B&M MegaShifter
Axle/Gears: Gear Ratio: 2.73 Ring Gear: 7 5/8
Re: Automatic verses Standard starters
codyhoward89cam - I have a 305 also, how difficult was it to switch out the OEM starter for the Summit Mini-Starter SUM829100? Did it mount right up to the OEM bracket? And did you have to shim the starter?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Denricci22
Transmissions and Drivetrain
5
Sep 18, 2015 09:02 AM








