Any issues w/ mini-starter and different torque converters

-
BillGrissom

BillGrissom

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
8,178
Reaction score
1,077
Location
Sacramento
Early A experts,

I put a mini-starter on my 65 273 and was concerned whether the teeth will mesh correctly (haven't spun). Concern is I recall mention of torque converters with different number of teeth on the starter ring. Is the tooth spacing the same for all and ring diameters vary? How could that work since the starter mounts at a fixed radius?

The mini-starter is from a mid-90's RAM pickup. I also have a new one that looks identical. Indeed, all look identical to those on my 2.4L Voyager and 3.8L T&C. I tested the mini-starter against a spare early-A torque converter and seems to mesh correctly. I would compare its teeth to the original beast starter, but misplaced it.
 
Thanks. Maybe my memory is wrong. I thought I heard people say a ___ tooth starter ring, as if they varied.
 
BillGrissom said:
Thanks. Maybe my memory is wrong. I thought I heard people say a ___ tooth starter ring, as if they varied.
Click to expand...

me to but maybe they were mis-placed chevy guys... why they would make different tooth rings gears i havn't a clue...
 
There are a couple different tooth counts 130, 143 and another I can't remember right now but they use the same starter. No drive gear change just mounting position is different.
 
Same as all above answers. Have used them on stick, auto, /6 to 440 and all worked no problem.
 
camd64 said:
There are a couple different tooth counts 130, 143 and another I can't remember right now but they use the same starter. No drive gear change just mounting position is different.
Click to expand...

what do u mean by different mounting positions??
 
I dunno. 70 318, 10.5 flywheel; swap in a 340-starter fine; swap in a 727, same starter fine. Install a Dakota (92, 5.2L) starter; fine.
 
Ita a manual trans thing, all convertors used the same ring gear diameter. thats why you see 8 inch race convertors with the ring looking like a hula hoop on them. BUT all convertors dont use the same center register. The early 273 convertors used a smaller register than the later ones so you need to run a bushing (like a pilot bushing but thinner) in a later crank with an early convertor. Itll bolt up fine, but youll end up breaking the flexplate, BTDT.
 
pishta said:
Ita a manual trans thing, all convertors used the same ring gear diameter. thats why you see 8 inch race convertors with the ring looking like a hula hoop on them. BUT all convertors dont use the same center register. The early 273 convertors used a smaller register than the later ones so you need to run a bushing (like a pilot bushing but thinner) in a later crank with an early convertor. Itll bolt up fine, but youll end up breaking the flexplate, BTDT.
Click to expand...

I recall reading something on that. I am not sure and someone can speak up but I think I read that the register opened up for the 68 models.
 
yup....sounds correct on the date. I couldnt figure out why I broke 2 flex plates on a mild 340/904 but that was it. They would crack all 4 ears and eventually throw a piece out with enough force to scare the crap out of you, but would continue to drive the trans because the other 3 ears had no where to go as they were still an "interference" fit between the convertor and the crank. You remove the convertor bolt and the piece would fall out.
 
pishta, chryslerfat,

You guys are a wealth of information. Sounds like in a manual if the flywheel doesn't match the bell-housing, the starter may not even contact the flywheel. Re original question, consensus is all Chrysler starters interchange (since ~1962?).

One must know all such details. Never assume "professionals" know. I once ordered a rebuilt 727 BB trans to install w/ rebuilt 383 engine in my '65 Chrysler. Was rushed to install before a move to CA and found the trans was wrong. Looked OK in shrink wrap, but found not a cable-shift and speedometer hole too big. I guess the national rebuilder didn't know '65 Mopars had column selectors but were still cable-shift.

I knew about the smaller pilot hole on earlier crankshafts (forged cranks <~'72?) and the matching torque converters. However, not sure if only small blocks. What about slant six and big blocks? I think a manual trans also requires adding a pilot bushing to the crank even when the same year, so more combinations and chances for FU.

Without centering the torque converter to engine, there would be vibration and bending loads, but you couldn't tell when bolting up. I once stripped the alumin threads in forcing a slant six auto trans to the engine. Must not have had the torque converter all the way in (rotate til both shafts slide in and pads at least 1/2" back from case). I didn't even have a Haynes manual in those dumb-kid days. I can see someone doing similar if the converter pilot hole was bigger than the crank's (newer torque converter to older engine). Not just a Mopar thing. A coworker once pulled hair trying to attach a GM trans to a SB Pontiac engine and found the crank differed from Chevy (60's parts).

Re cracking flexplates, a common problem on Mopar 3.8L V-6's, which are basically small-blocks w/ 2 less cylinders. This Xmas break will be spent fixing that on my 2002 T&C, plus rebuilding the trans. It also messes up the crank sensor (engine misses) since the slotted "toner ring" is part of the flexplate and also cracks. I wonder if Magnum engines suffer the same problem since similar design and even more torque. Do they use cheap, brittle steel today? I see all kind of parts break that never broke in the old days.
 
What about slant six and big blocks?

Dunno about the big blocks, but our 1964 /6 definitely had a small converter register hole in the back of the crank so that when we ordered a converter, it had to be a bastard unit, with a front register piece sized to fit inside a small register crank-hole and have a 27 spline (large) input shaft dimension because it was going to live in a drag race environment and in that case, bigger IS better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top