Please forgive my ignorance as this may be common knowledge but it was news to me.
I was searching online and saw a T96 cluster gear, part #521489, and checked it against the 1959-64 chassis parts book and it fits 1959-63 T96 transmissions. So, next was to see why not the 1964 T96. Digging deeper it turns out the 1964 had a different gear set/ratios. What Studebaker did was give the 1964 models, that used this transmission, a bit more pep over previous models. The tradeoff is a slightly bigger jump to the final/third/top gear, just over 3-1/2 mph, with 26" tires, a 3.73 ring and pinion, with shift points at 3000 rpm. (just some numbers that I plugged into a calculator)
I have a question. What did Studebaker do for 1964 six cylinder engine from 1963? Was this the only change that would make a performance difference? I see there was a carburetor change and also the oil pressure listed jumped up to 45 psi from 30 for the 63. I can't see any oil pump changes but the rear cam bearing was new for 63. The accompanying camshaft is noted, note #25 in the engine section, for a mid model change. Maybe that helped the oil pressure. There was no 3.54 available in 1964 but that is just one of many ratios to choose from and that would not necessitate a transmission ratio change. It could just be a very simple answer in that Borg Warner did not offer the earlier ratio anymore.
Boy, there is a lot of subtle differences with these later model sixes. Those engineers were fighting to the end.
Good thing I never ran into a 64 trans when I rebuilt my T96 years ago, as I would have just used parts from any and all T96s. I probably would have checked it out and found this out, hopefully before a gear clash.
This means that we have close and wide ratio T96 transmissions to choose from. A swap either way, up or down with the ratios, between 1964 and the other years could be helpful in dialing in the perfect setup for six cylinder cars based on the drivers habits and preferences.
I was searching online and saw a T96 cluster gear, part #521489, and checked it against the 1959-64 chassis parts book and it fits 1959-63 T96 transmissions. So, next was to see why not the 1964 T96. Digging deeper it turns out the 1964 had a different gear set/ratios. What Studebaker did was give the 1964 models, that used this transmission, a bit more pep over previous models. The tradeoff is a slightly bigger jump to the final/third/top gear, just over 3-1/2 mph, with 26" tires, a 3.73 ring and pinion, with shift points at 3000 rpm. (just some numbers that I plugged into a calculator)
I have a question. What did Studebaker do for 1964 six cylinder engine from 1963? Was this the only change that would make a performance difference? I see there was a carburetor change and also the oil pressure listed jumped up to 45 psi from 30 for the 63. I can't see any oil pump changes but the rear cam bearing was new for 63. The accompanying camshaft is noted, note #25 in the engine section, for a mid model change. Maybe that helped the oil pressure. There was no 3.54 available in 1964 but that is just one of many ratios to choose from and that would not necessitate a transmission ratio change. It could just be a very simple answer in that Borg Warner did not offer the earlier ratio anymore.
Boy, there is a lot of subtle differences with these later model sixes. Those engineers were fighting to the end.
Good thing I never ran into a 64 trans when I rebuilt my T96 years ago, as I would have just used parts from any and all T96s. I probably would have checked it out and found this out, hopefully before a gear clash.
This means that we have close and wide ratio T96 transmissions to choose from. A swap either way, up or down with the ratios, between 1964 and the other years could be helpful in dialing in the perfect setup for six cylinder cars based on the drivers habits and preferences.
Comment