<VV> EM v LM shifters

[Sethracer at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/16/2011 12:09:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
shortle556 at earthlink.net writes:

The  change came about so that the engineers would have something to do. No 
really,  I don't know the biggest reasons for all the changes but certainly 
a lot did  change EM vs. LM. I know some companies even sold a "quick 
shift" kit for the  Corvairs. In my opinion the '66 transmision shifting was a 
bit stiffer than  the '65. Anyone else notice this '65 vs. '66?
Timothy Shortle in  (beautiful, snowy) Durango Colorado


I am not sure, Tim. One of the main changes was the stabilization of the  
shifter by attaching it to the front crossmember of the transmission. Perhaps 
 this was needed because the powerpack moved around a bit in the late 
chassis and  they wanted the shifter to stay in relationship to the trans. As far 
as the 65  versus the 66 transmissions - it is simple physics. All of the 
internal parts of  the 65 transmissions, both 3-speed and 4-speed, are 
smaller and lighter than  their counterparts in the 66-69 (so-called) Saginaw 
trans. It takes more  physical pressure to get that extra weight to move. And 
inside the trans, the  synchros work harder because they are trying to match 
heavier components to  speed. I have noticed this as well, and I have heard 
it from  others. 

 

Seth  Emerson

C's the Day! - Corvair, Camaro, Corvette
San Jose,  CA