I'm swapping from an auto to a manual on my 89 IROC and am kinda stumped on which starter to use. I checked the part numbers for a 89 305 M5 car and it calls for a different number than my L-98 Auto. Is there a difference? Which one do I need?

Thanks

 

Yes there is a difference.

The nosepiece that came on OE auto starters was "fatter" than the ones that came on OE stick starters. The auto ones will not fit in a stick bell housing. A stick starter will fit either auto or manual.

They may have quit making 2 different starters in the later years; I don't know for sure. Also not sure why that was EVER a good idea; but, w/e. IIWII.

Most "rebuilt" starters have replacement noespieces and will fit either application.

 

Perfect, yeah it makes no sense but doesn't surprise me. Thanks for the information... guess I need a new starter. lol...

 

I extremely doubt the validity of this. Easier to think Sofa is confusing 168-tooth starters with 153-tooth starters. Because you can in fact use any 153-tooth starter in any SBC bellhousing.

 

Listen to Sofa, he knows what he is talking about.

 

False. I guess you haven't seen my L98 vs. LB9 starter pictures.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tran...-question.html

My experience with tearing down dozens of F-bodies was it was LB9 vs. L98 and not Manual / Auto.

An auto L98 F-body "Big" starter (see pics in link above) won't fit a T5 nor LT1 T56 bellhousing.
A manual LB9 F-body "Smaller" starter (see pics in link above) will fit everything. (I have one with an LT1 T56)
The 93-97 F-body starter and 88-96 Vette starter will both fit all of the above too.

Any header clearance questions, check with Dyno Don.

 

Hey guys. Guess I will resurrect this thread a bit instead of starting a new one. I just got done rebuilding an old small block chevy 350. Along the way I had to get a different block then the one I pulled from the car. Both were 74 SBC, original from a truck the new one out of a vette. Went to bolt it up today and the bolt pattern didn't line up. My starter has two holes in the back to bolt up to the block the new block it needs to bolt up kitty corner, one in the back one more on the side.

 

153 starters are 1 long, 1 short bolt, both at the back.
168 starters are 2 equal length bolts diagonally.

Search for posts about starters and having to drill the block. I think sofa posted a bit about this. The holes must be countersunk properly.

 

thanks. I should have got my fly wheel part number I don't know exactly what flywheel it is. However the original starter worked for it and it sounds like its' the 153 starter. But now I got the holes for the 168, I really don't feel like pulling the engine out after just setting it in to drill some holes.

 

If you only have the offset holes you have to use a 168 tooth flywheel.

But with a T-5 you have to use a 153 tooth flywheel and starter.

 

Who told you the engine had to be pulled?

Even if a 168 tooth flywheel fits inside your T5, the starter won't.

So to use your engine as-is with the least amount of present and future effort and parts expenditures, drilling and tapping the block in the car so the 153 starter and flywheel work is the way to go.

Late model blocks with less leak-prone one piece rear mains, longer-wearing cylinder walls and factory roller cam provisions are the way to go.

 

Nobody told me I had to I just hoped I didn't have to I just dropped it in.
thanks for your insight man. Yah newer blocks are the way to go the car came with a small block I bought a few parts for it then I took it in to clean up a cylinder wall n then had to get a different block. I never planned to spend half as much as I have haha. Some day Ls1 or Lsx swap if I really enjoy the car.

 

Okay so we drilled and taped the block the other day and we slid the starter up in and wallla the gear still won't hit the flywheel. We shimmed it as much as we could still couldn't get it to work. Today we borrowed a mini high torque starter and that couldn't even get close to engaging either. We measured the original block and compared it to the block in the car now. there is dam near 5/8ths of inch difference in the horizontal location of the holes. So in other words we are 5'8ths of an inch away from getting the gear to engage.

My dad's buddy 20 yrs experience working on hot rods is suggesting pulling the motor out and drill and taping new holes as the only solution. Because you can't put a 168 tooth flywheel behind the t5 without buying a new bellhousings plus a starter plus a new flywheel. I am pretty damn frustrated right now. I'd rather buy a new block and switch the parts rather then buy all those adaptable parts.

It's either drill and tap new holes or would this fancy 350 dollar starter cure this
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CSI-100PSBP/?rtype=10

 

post pictures of what you have.

 

I will have to have my brother take pics with his smart phone. My phone is too grainy probably. I guess my dad's buddy called the engine shop that did the work on the block and they said they just had to find a starter for a similar block. So he was calling around today trying to find one I guess. Hopefully that does the charm.

 

I don't know who "we" is (I become suspect of people who use that phrase since it sometimes means one party involved didn't do ****) but it sounds like "we" screwed up the block.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...bolt-holes.jpg

Think about how those bolt holes are lined up. They're in an arc so the inner holes are the same distance from the outer hole. That's why your drill & tap job sounds like it was done incorrectly.

Yep.
Well, a scattershield isn't a terrible idea but would definitely add to the work involved.
Again, think about how those bolt holes are lined up.

The staggered bolts for a 168 tooth flywheel compatible starter work with it because the inner bolt is inboard of the starter parts. The 153 tooth starter is further inboard and the starter parts are directly where the inboard bolt for a 168 starter goes.

Which means that starter solves nothing for you now that you know how to buy the right one.

BTW, keep searching and reading. Much of what you're going through has been asked and answered over the years. The starter issue with a 400 for example is here: http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/te...starter-2.html

 

Here's where the hole SHOULD be. This is a 400 block that I drilled many years ago. With this hole, and a starter (whether OE or aftermarket, doesn't matter) for the 12.8" stuff, everything bolts up, fits, and works.



THINK: you're telling us your starter is now 5/8" off. Well, if you take a 14" wheel and a 12.8" wheel, you'll find that they're about 1.2" different in diameter; or, about .6" different in radius, i.e. distance from CENTER (crank) to CIRCUMFERENCE (ring gear teeth). Sounds suspiciously similar to 5/8" (.625"), eh?? You drilled the wrong hole, AND you have the wrong starter.

 

I've read through this and just have one question so forgive me if it seems simple: I've not read about this procedure being necessary in other T5 swaps I've read about on this site,is this drilling and tapping necessary on a late model thirdgen(87-92) with the original type block?

 

Nope. Three bolt holes were put in blocks starting some time in the 1970s. So the T5 related stuff just bolts onto later blocks.

The "deal" found on an early shortblock involves no-roller cam provisions, a leak-prone rear main seal, faster-wearing bores (if you put a lot of miles on and keep the engine a long time,) and late model blocks aren't even expensive. So yeah, I'll stick with the late model blocks instead of early stuff!

 

Dude JMD I appreciate your insight I get it you dont like old Gen 1 blocks. A lot of people do and they seem to work quite well. Yah there not bullet proof and neither are the newer blocks. Seems like the newer blocks have their own quirks like spun bearings and cracked blocks.
"We" was me and my dad ... My dad drilled and tapped the hole I was hooking it up and such. It has been a "we" project between my dad, my brother and myself. I am just learning this for the first time really. Looks like my dad tapped the hole by following the old block pattern thus we are off by 5/8ths of an inch.

Sofa. Thanks for the sobriety I do a lot of searching sometimes things just don't come up if you don't know the the thread key words. Seems the search is more likely to grab newer threads even if it isn't relevant to the key words you use. My dad will probably have to drill some holes, but the engine shop did tell my dad's friend that he just bought a starter with an adjustable bracket that fixes this issue. I hope this is true, but I don't see anything proving this on the web.

 

Sofa your holes don't look square. Your one hole seems to sit back further, my dad is telling me it will eat up starters if we tapped a hole like that because the gear would be going in crooked. I stated you are probably running a high torque after market starter. He still seems to think your blowing through starters.

 

I put that block that's in the pic into my car in about 1988, and it stayed there until about 2001.

It blew all the way through the starter that came on the car from GM in about 1993 or 4; and the aftermarket one I replaced it with is on the car to this day. The OE one was .... weak, to say the least .... and had trouble turning over a relatively high-compression 400 for some reason, and I just got tired of it. The replacement spun it so fast, it made it sound like all the spark plugs were out.

In miles, that covered from around 140 some-odd thousand, to somewhere near 320 thousand. The car was my "work truck" for years.

So yeah, pretty unreliable I guess.

The bolt hole itself is actually pretty darn close... it's within .015" or so of being the same distance off the BH flange as the other one. It takes one medium shim to align the gear perfectly. Camera angles do strange things to perspective.

I gotta agree about the older blocks. Having thrown away no telling how many over the years for The Starter Bolt Hole Problem (where the whole bolt pattern is too far from the crank), The Lifter Bore Problem (where some of the lifter bores don't point straight at the cam so it eats cam lobes), The BH Dowel Pin Problem (where the dowel pins for the trans aren't centered on the crank so it eats pump bushings), The Cylinder Register Problem (where the cylinders are so far to the front or rear of the crank journals that the rods are forced to sit at an angle so it eats rod bearings), and all those other wonderful quality-control issues from "the good old days", I try real hard not to ever build old ones any more, except for ones with virtues that outshine the risks... like 400s.