Inliners International Forums General Discussion Drive Train 1951 Chevrolet 235 engine and 216 Bell

My 51 Chevrolet car has 1955 235 engine with 216 Bell Housing set up. Its all new and works good with electronic ignition. My rear end is another story. It was noisy and the ring gear teath were broken. I bought a 1954 235 rear end and put all the rear and drive shaft in my old housing and managed to break those teeth. I went this morning and picked up a used Saginaw 3 speed and rear housing off of 1955 Chevrolet. I have the original Bell Housing and Clutch that came with the 235 engine but have had the 216 transmission rebuilt and all new 216 clutch and pressure plate and 6 volt starter. I sure hate to take that all out in order to do the open drive shaft.
A couple questions I have after reading the posts here that I am a little unclear about.
1. Does, in fact, using the 235 bell housing cause problems with the clutch operation?
2. Do I really have to cut out the old transmission cross member in order to put in the Saginaw 3 speed? or is it possible the saginaw will clear it.
3. What is going to support my new Transmission. If I use the 235 Bell Housing which has side mounts on it, that I assume some modification will have to be done to have something to bolt those to. Is this enough support for the Transmission or does it need something under it.
4. Will my 51 rear springs work with the rear axel pearches on the 55 or do I need to go with 55-57 springs and mounts?
5. Do I use a 55-57 Drive Shaft and are any modifications needed. The output shaft on the Saginaw is 27 spline. The 10 spline in front is ok.
I just can't bolt the saginaw to the 216 bell housing which is what I prefer.

Using the 55-62 car bellhousing does give you clutch issues due to the different angle of the fork.

I know cutting out the center section is necessary for the T5, but not sure on the others, I would think it would be necessary.

If you do make the bellhousing sidemounts work, then no support under the tranny is necessary. Otherwise, a tranny support can be made as part of the crossmember section that you cut out. Make it boltable though, otherwise you can't get the tranny back out...

Your stock springs will work fine, I believe the 55-57 perches are in the right location, just measure them for yourself and see. If not, cut them off and move them. Install the rearend, etc... before rewelding the perches so you can make sure you get the proper pinion angle. Also note that the rearend isn't centered over the spring bolt, but is about 1 1/2" farther back, so drill another set of holes in the perches for proper rearend location.

Speedway sells a cheap set of U-bolts and lower mounting plates with shock mount if you need them.

The 55-57 driveshaft should work, worst case, you would need to have the length changed. There are places that will shorten or even make from scratch a driveshaft. Check your local phonebook.

The easiest way to go open driveline would be to go with an S10 T5 and an adapter plate from Buffalo. Then you can keep the 216 bellhousing, But it only works with the S10 T5 with the longer input shaft. It would also require changing the clutch disc, and the output splines are different, so the 55 driveshaft will not work as is.

I believe the 1958 bellhousing is the only later one that will work with your clutch fork set up. However, I'd still think, finding another torque tube rear end would be much easier than changing everything else.

Another option with the later bellhousings would be to cut the fork slot lower, and relocate the pivot ball, to mimic the 216 setup. I think around 57 or 58 they went to a bolt-in pivot ball instead of a pressed in type, if that helps any.

Dear Bob;

Check with Patrick's in Casa Grande, Az. (520)836-1117.

The truck bell housings (4 speed) of the '216 era' are close to the same pattern (transmission) of the 55-62 passenger car ones with the same (216 type)fork.

This may work for your application.

Good luck.

The late 47-59 truck housing has the later tranny bolt pattern, but the fork still comes out straight like on the 55-62 car housings. The difference between them is with the motor mounts.
The 60-62 trucks used a hydraulic slave cylinder mounted on the passenger side.

Is it possible to use the 216 type (passenger car) fork and ball with the 47-54 truck housing??

The issue isn't the fork itself, but the angle that it comes out of the bellhousing. On 49-54 cars it doesn't come out straight, but at a downward angle of around 20 degrees or so. If you modify the bellhousing with a lower slot, and relocate the position of the pivot ball, then you can use the 216 fork. I'm not sure if the size of the ball is the same between the 216 and later 235's, but if it is, then I would suggest using the later pivot ball since it is a bolt in rather than a pressed in part.

If you try to use a "straight out" fork, you will find that it will interfere with just about everything in that area of the car. It would be a far less hassle and expense to either modify the later bellhousing as described, go with a hydraulic throwout bearing setup which would eliminate the fork alltogether, or use the 216 housing with a Buffalo adapter and a S10 T5 tranny.

Yeah, the adapter is it. This way there are no mods required & he can use his stock starter too.

An 'extra' master Cly. would be a big hassel.

Is the ball in a different position causing the fork downward??

I have to do one of these soon is why I'm asking.

Yes, the pivot is located lower also. The fork itself is straight, it's just rotated down about the input shaft centerline.

Once you have all the pieces in front of you, it will be perfectly clear what the differences are and what needs to be done. I just went through all of this on my friends '52.

I'll try to post a picture of the two bellhousings later...

Upper left is from a 54-59 truck, upper right is from a 49-54 car, and for good measure the lower one is from a V8, I think its about a '59...



this view shows better the angle difference of the forks. Note that using the mounts after cutting the slot lower is probably unlikely. Wether a 48-53 truck housing would be any easier, I can't say at the moment...

I measured the pivot ball diameter on all 3 housings, and they were the same...

Gearhead talks about using an S10 T5 with a longer input shaft. I thought all S10 T5's were the same. I'm looking at a 87 S10 T5 for my 51 sedan, for which I'm going to use the Buffalo approach. Can someone discuss input shaft length differences?

Thanks Bryan;

That tells the story all right.

I'm assuming that there's no problem with 48 on back as there straight out.

Sherman,
I was trying to make a distinction between the S10 and other applications. All of the 4cyl and 2.8V6 S10's had a longer input shaft @ 7 1/4", but I'm not sure about the 4.3V6 versions. If someone could verify the input shaft length on a 4.3V6 T5, I would appreciate it. Same for the Astro van applications.
On that '87, make sure it uses a mechanical sender for the speedo.

John,
Right, the 49-54 cars are the only problem.

I know this isnt very accurate, but this is what I know. My room mate put a t5 in his truck, and I put one on my car. His was out of an s10 and had to shim it out two washers. Mine was from a v8 capri (yes, according to the code it was a capri. Why the bolt pattern was chevy? I dont know) and it had to be shimmed the same two washers. I have pics on my site about my tranny mount.