i have an 85 trans am , and my dad has a spare super t 10 and a muncie rockcrusher. I want to run one of these in my car . The car is an auto right now. I dont want a 6 speed and all the bs with the cluth hydraulics. Has anyone built their own linkage to make it work . I know spohn sells the trans crossmember . But i wanna use the 4 speed cause i dont drive it that much so od isnt a concern. Does anyone sell or make the linkage. i know they used a t10 in 82 but i need the linkages. Help .

 

The 82 bellhousing and 82-83 linkages will get you going with mechanical. The linkages are poor in design and tends to break a lot, but whatever. You could run hydraulic & a T-10 is an 88 Vette bellhousing or the right Lakewood.

As far as clutch hydraulics being BS... well I'm glad your olde man has taught you something, even if it is incorrect. Quality time with your kids is valuable.

 

PS: it's an M-21. Not a rock crusher.

 

Actually, its an M22, and it got the "Rock Crusher" name from the way it sounds.

Of the two, the M22 is stronger, but might be more work to get it working. An M22 is worth an obscene amount of money to restorers on Ebay though...

 

I'm saying he has an M-21. I know which is which. Until he posts a pic proving otherise, it's an M-21. Everybody and their brother claims to have an M-22, and they never do.

The M-22 just has a different gearset. The gearset in the M-21 was not the problem, the case was. Since the 2 of them used the same case, your argument that the 22 takes more work for a swap is

Beyond that, a Super T-10 is still a better box, so unless you're restoring something, leave the Muncies to those guys.

 

trust me, i've been dealing with mechanical linkage for the better part of 3 years now, you don't want it. You want hydralic.

Even properly set up, my clutch releases at a different spot everytime.

Because the Z-bar mounts to the frame and engine, if the engine is flexing in its mounts at all, or the frame is flexing at all, the clutch releases at a different point.

Its broke on my several times, run hyrdlic, there is a reason no cars come with mechanical linkage anymore.

 

so i guess you think its worth the extra work to make the hydraulic work . If i get a pic of the tranny how do i know which is which. I mean if its a 21 or 22.

 

Pull the side cover and take a picture of the gearset.

 

I always here this from '82 T10 owners yet I am starting to believe I am the only one that has never had the linkage break!I never had the stock parts fail but after hearing so many complaints abou tit I reinforced the z bar with gussets and custom made all the linkage with spherical bearings that have been in there since I made the parts 5 years ago and never had to touch it again.Used an old article in CHP based on Chevelle linkage to come up with mine.I am very happy with my mechanical setup..always releases in the same spot year after year.Now the Hurst shifter rods getting hung up between the trans and floor board..that is a whole different experience.

 

well im not pulling the side cover to prove anything, its my dads t rannys so im not doing it. But on a side note, does anyone have the setup to make my car be able to use a t 10 . Im lookin gfor the linkage and crap .

 

I said the M22 is harder to install than the T10, not the M21. I know they have the same case, and the internals are different.

The ST10 actually came in these cars in '82. The case was modified to use a torque arm though, but otherwise the same. That is why a T10 is easier to install than a Muncie.

Spohn (see sponsors) has the stuff you need to install either of those trannies.

 

I dont think anyone here cares what you think, if you dont think its what he says it is, so what? No one has anything to prove to you, so knock off the crap.

 

Ah, then something in your quoted reference or text should have included ST-10 instead of just Muncie codes. Re-read your post for clarity.


Yep.


The longer Tq. arm from an 82 would work too. Those make good prybars for getting coil springs out.


Misinformation isn't needed and should be corrected. Tech is needed. Try & provide more tech know-how before reaming me. The difference between my posts and yours is that I'll tell you the same things in person with no qualms. Thanks.

-Matthew

 

Im not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly, but if you are implying that I wouldnt have said that to you in person, you are right. If you would have made an asshat comment like that in my garage, you would have heard a lot more than that.

 

I bet you have a hell of a rant about how great the TH350 is written down and ready for public dispersal.

 

And this ladies and gentleman is how a topic goes to s**t!

 

dont need to have a rant about the th350, its been proven to be a good trans. Dont have any rants about any trans really, I just cant stand people like you with attitudes bigger than brain making comments to people like that. How the hell do you know what kind of trans he has, and why should he prove anything to you? Go beat your wife.

 

I remember you now, youre the guy that got mad in the th350 thread because he doesnt know anything about auto trans. Thats cool. I guess it would be best if i let you blow your around for a while, then you'll leave.

 

I've been here 4 years.

And I've contributed more technically to automatic trans threads here than you ever will.

Quit riding my case just because you don't like my delivery.

That's it from me in this thread.

-Matthew

 

So what?

Let me flag someone over, I wasn't aware we had an auto trans expert here. Hmmm, come to think of it, why did we even talk about those, because you brought it up. Sorry man, if you still have red ***** over what happened in the other thread, I cant help ya. Just leave it there.