4.3 v6 in 66 Commander

[Doug M]

That may be on trany I am not sure do not have a book on it yet. I use a 68 motors manuial to work on engene no studebaker section in it

[Hippie]

quote:Originally posted by Swifster
The V6 is internally balanced just like the SBC.

The '87 & up 4.3's with 1 Pc. rear main seal are externally balanced like the '87 & up 305 and 350's and the crank hub is also different as mentioned by someone else. They require a different flexplate or flywheel. As for a trans I prefer the 200-4R for smaller displacement engines in light vehicles. I had a 700R4 behind a 4.3 and the drop from 1st to second was quite noticeable compared to a 200-4R. The 3.73 gears are a perfect match for a 4.3 and 200-4R.


The 194, V-8 and 90 degree V-6 Chevies all used the same bellhousing pattern. The 4.3 will bolt to the Chevybaker bellhousing. The flexplate to converter alignment would be the only question if retaining the original FOM. I'd like to know the answer to that one as I picked up a Chevy pattern FOM this summer but it doesn't have a converter with it.


Analog man in a digital world.

[Mike Van Veghten]

NO...

Your original question is somewhat difficult to understand....but if I read it correctly...
The Chevy engine and Stude trans./ will NOT bolt up.

As for using a GM trans., I've got experience with both the 700-R4 and the 200-4R.
The 200-4R is a MUCH better all around choise.

Mike

[Paul Keller]

Agree w/ using a 200-4R rather than 700R4 - Another advantage is that the 200-4R is noticably smaller and allows extra installation space (as compared to 700R4). Plus, there is less internal friction to the 200-4R, therefore more available power. Since it is can be built to handle high H.P. dragsters, there should not be a problem w/ durability.
Good luck - Let us know what the final combination is.

[buddymander]

Hippie, doesn't the snout of the convertor align in the back of the crank on the 194, sbc, 4.3, early and late; all the same? I figure it would just be a matter of redrilling the flywheel to match the convertor bolts. No?

[Hippie]

quote:Originally posted by buddymander

Hippie, doesn't the snout of the convertor align in the back of the crank on the 194, sbc, 4.3, early and late; all the same? I figure it would just be a matter of redrilling the flywheel to match the convertor bolts. No?

Logic would lead one to believe that is the case but I haven't seen the converter and flexplate the Chevybakers used so I can't say. If they used a standard Chevy flexplate, and that would be the logical assumption, then no problem.

Analog man in a digital world.

[Doug M]

Thanks for the input Doug M

[buddymander]

I was thinking, I wonder if an earlymid sixties ford convertor would have the same size snout (390, not 289)as a chevy. I know they're close but have never measured one. Then you would just redrill the chevy flywheel to the four stud ford bolt pattern; no special flexplate required. But you can probably redrill the chevy flywheel to the stude pattern even if it's something weird, like the one that was in my GT. I bet the stude convertors are a lot more money than the ford ones.

[Hippie]

quote:Originally posted by buddymander

I was thinking, I wonder if an earlymid sixties ford convertor would have the same size snout (390, not 289)as a chevy. I know they're close but have never measured one. Then you would just redrill the chevy flywheel to the four stud ford bolt pattern; no special flexplate required. But you can probably redrill the chevy flywheel to the stude pattern even if it's something weird, like the one that was in my GT. I bet the stude convertors are a lot more money than the ford ones.

Good thinking but Chevy flexplates have 3 or 6 offset mounting pads located 120 or 60 degrees apart depending on year. Although you might be able to align the Ford mounts to flat areas on the Chevy flexplate, drill corresponding holes and use spacers.

Analog man in a digital world.