Compatibility

[Mymountain2]

I have a 1962 Monza 900, 80hp w/4sp. I want to install a 1966, 110hp block number J1210RH. This is a PG.
I have been told this engine will bolt right into my 62. Can I use my 62 bell housing, clutch pack, 4sp trans, and diff? Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks

[American Mel]

You should enjoy that swap.
That is close to a 40% power increase!
I have never done an LM to EM swap so not an expert on that, but others will chime in.
I think you are on the correct path.
Don't forget a Pilot Bushing also.

[cnicol]

Yes the engine will fit nicely.
A couple of notes:
You will need a 164 MT bell housing to put the crankshaft seal in the right place on the longer 164 crankshaft.
Add a pilot bushing
Your existing flywheel, clutch, and transaxle is 100% compatible. Use the longer flywheel bolts and ring-spacer from the '62.
The 110 has a Harmonic damper crankshaft pulley that's wider than the sheet metal pulley that's on your '62 engine. As such, you will need to either get a '64 or A/C rear engine support or add just a few washers between your existing bracket so you can barely get the belt through. This only works with a proper 3/8" belt such as a 3V560.
All perimeter sheet metal has to be swapped over.
If your 62 still has a generator, you have a little work to either convert the engine to a generator (requires generator type oil filter adapter) or convert the car to alternator which requires a little wiring and a regulator.

[joelsplace]

Yes.
Be sure to use the '62 flywheel bolts too since they are longer than the PowerGlide bolts.
Be careful with the bolts. They are an oddball size and the heads are thin. You can grind the end off of a six point socket to get a full bite on the heads.
You'll have to use a lot of the '62 sheet metal also since the body seals are different. You may have to enlarge some of the holes in the sheet metal since the '66 has larger bolts on the top surface of the heads.
You'll have to use the '62 rear mount also since EMs and LMs are different. This is where you'll get into trouble unless your car has A/C. The non A/C EM rear mount doesn't have clearance for the harmonic balancer. You'll need either a '61-'63 A/C mount or a '64. The rear rubber engine mount is also slightly different in the stud location. I'm not sure there is enough difference in the stud location to really matter.

[66vairguy]

As Craig mentioned you will need the 64 bellhousing for a 66 engine. In 64 the bigger engine had a crankshaft gear that was revised to move the flywheel just enough to accommodate the new stepped flywheel and revised pressure plate AND throwout bearing. All these changes were done because at higher RPM the pre-64 pressure plate had a tendency to loose clamping pressure do to centrifugal force (especially when releasing the clutch after a shift).

Note the 64 bellhousing also has a revised pressure plate fork pivot height and I'm not sure if it works well with the pre-64 throwout bearing.

Some do manage to use the pre-64 flywheel and pressure plate with the newer engine and bellhousing, but I've seen a few issues arise. Frankly I don't like creating a "kludge" of 1st generation and 2nd generation clutch parts. Just makes repairs for someone else down the road more complicated. Just me.

[cnicol]

@66Vairguy
Clutch wise, nothing I suggested is a kludge. Ball stud is on the diff so the existing one matches a flat 145 flywheel and flat 145 pressure plate combination. The entire clutch package I proposed reusing is a matching set.

[Mymountain2]

Are there any body modifications required such as mounts, clearance issues, etc? The car is currently on a rotisserie, completely stripped. In the process of doing some interior mods and getting ready to finish body work. Soooo, want to tackle any required mods now rather than after paint.
And thank you for taking the time to help. Everyone in this forum is always so generous with their time.

[joelsplace]

No body modifications.

[Frank DuVal]

Note the 64 bellhousing also has a revised pressure plate fork pivot height and I'm not sure if it works well with the pre-64 throwout bearing.

Some do manage to use the pre-64 flywheel and pressure plate with the newer engine and bellhousing, but I've seen a few issues arise. Frankly I don't like creating a "kludge" of 1st generation and 2nd generation clutch parts. Just makes repairs for someone else down the road more complicated. Just me.

Right, no mixing and matching of clutch system parts. There was a diagram explaining them in the Clark's Corvair Catalog.

All belhousing are all the same distance from engine case edge to differential edge.

Clutch pivot is screwed into the differential, so all early (60 to 63 or 145 cu in) clutch parts are reused in this proposed swap, since the 62 differential stays with the car. So, use all the clutch parts you currently have. Do NOT buy anything to fit a 110 HP 164 cu in engine, except the clutch disc, as noted below, all the 9" discs are the same (I do not count the weird riveted hub one as being for a Corvair, see below). Now, if you have an 8" disc in there when you take it all apart, buy a 9".

Avoid using a riveted hub clutch disc if you decide to buy a new one. Welded hub style ONLY! Too many times the rivets catch on the crankshaft bolts so the clutch will not release, then out the drivetrain comes again....

Drive pilot bushing into 66 crankshaft the same distance as the one in the 62 engine.

Drop the entire drivetrain out and reinstall as an assembly. You might think dropping the engine alone saves time, but nope!

Don't forget to unscrew speedometer cable from differential!

Take lots of pictures with your cell phone of underneath connections/bolts/etc. since this is your first time and the shop manual pictures are not as clear as new ones.

Run the 110 top shroud (aka turkey roaster) and swap all the other sheet metal. You can use washers to space the mototr mount bracket to the engine to allow belt changes.

You may consider running the 110 air cleaner assembly. Saves changing the PCV plumbing. Your 62 probably has a road draft tube, and the 110 has a PCV system.

You should use a 64 or later belhousing, the earlier belhousings have a half dollar sized depression to clear the camshaft.
If Dave Motohead sees this he may have some work arounds.

I'm sure there is more....

[jimbrandberg]

Someone above said the LM crankshaft is longer but the seal surface area is shorter.
If you put a EM Manual bell housing on a LM crankshaft it's right out at the end of the crankshaft. I've used a shim behind the seal in a EM bell housing to move the seal further on to the crankshaft. I think last time I used 3 old cylinder base gaskets where I had to make a slit for them to be the right diameter and I clocked the slits 120 degrees apart. 4 of them may have been a better thickness.
The silver dollar recession doesn't matter if using a EM bell housing on a LM engine. It can be there and just not doing anything.
I like to just use a LM bell housing on a LM engine but I was low on them at the time.

I like the explanation above about why they went with a stepped flywheel and bent finger pressure plate on the LM engine, I've never seen that before.
The 64 engine is considered LM in my mind since it's 164 CI crankshaft.

The EM flat finger pressure plate uses a release bearing with rounded edges.
The LM bent finger pressure plate uses a release bearing with a flat face.

Jim Brandberg
Isanti, MN
CorvairRepair.com

[Vairone]

snip
All these changes were done because at higher RPM the pre-64 pressure plate had a tendency to loose clamping pressure do to centrifugal force (especially when releasing the clutch after a shift).

I think it is the opposite. Due to centripetal force, when the clutch was released at high RPMs, the early flat finger pressure plates had a tendency to not 'un-release' until the RPM was reduced.

[Mymountain2]

Is that any 1964 or later MT bell housing?

[Frank DuVal]

Right, any 164 cu in MT belhousing. So that is 64 to 69.

Thanks, Jim, I knew some people had done the adaptation.

[66vairguy]

snip
All these changes were done because at higher RPM the pre-64 pressure plate had a tendency to loose clamping pressure do to centrifugal force (especially when releasing the clutch after a shift).

I think it is the opposite. Due to centripetal force, when the clutch was released at high RPMs, the early flat finger pressure plates had a tendency to not 'un-release' until the RPM was reduced.

Reduced clamping pressure is the result of the pressure plate that had a "tendency not 'un-release until RPM was reduced" Same thing, but you used a double negative. Did you mean the pressure plate had a tendency not to be released when the throw out bearing moved away from the pressure plate fingers?

If you meant the pressure plate was more difficult to disengage at higher RPM, then that would result in a higher clutch pedal pressure. AFAIK that is not the problem. Anybody else have any information from published articles???

[66vairguy]

Someone above said the LM crankshaft is longer but the seal surface area is shorter.

Jim Brandberg
Isanti, MN
CorvairRepair.com

Jim - AFAIK the longer stroke 64-69 crankshaft is the same overall length as the earlier shorter stroke crankshaft. The crank gear pressed on the crankshaft is different. The area that the seal rests on, and the flywheel bolts to, are what is "shorter". I had pictures of the short stroke vs. long stroke gears, but I can't find them at the moment. Anybody else got pictures showing the different in the crank gears?

I do know that if you use an 60-63 bellhousing on a 64-69 engine the flywheel will hit the lower bellhousing to block bolts.

[Vairone]

snip
All these changes were done because at higher RPM the pre-64 pressure plate had a tendency to loose clamping pressure do to centrifugal force (especially when releasing the clutch after a shift).

I think it is the opposite. Due to centripetal force, when the clutch was released at high RPMs, the early flat finger pressure plates had a tendency to not 'un-release' until the RPM was reduced.

Did you mean the pressure plate had a tendency not to be released when the throw out bearing moved away from the pressure plate fingers?

Correct. That is common with flat finger diaphragm pressure plates and the reason the change was made to a bent finger design.

When the throw out bearing is engaged the flat fingers over center slightly and at higher RPMs the centripetal force keeps the fingers in place and does not allow the pressure plate to release. When the RPMs drop, the centripetal force is reduced and the pressure plate releases. A bent finger pressure plate does not have this issue as the fingers do not over center.