63 Muncie M20 Transmission Pat Pend

[lbnaz]

For Sale a Muncie M20 transmission case number 3831704. The book says its 1963. There is a vin stamped on it. G135672 and a P04??. The side cove (684) and tailshaft (584) are not 63 according to the books. The inside looks in good shape with no broken gears. I will box and ship Fed Ex ground to lower 48. price is 650. Also have a 62 and 63 T10. Thanks, Larry. 520-349-2337

[lbnaz]

Additional photo

[lbnaz]

photo 3

[lbnaz]

vin photo

[Mr70]

That's a Framingham assembly plant callout,with a Chevrolet Division sequence.
Looks like it was designated to go on a 1963 Passenger series-Impala/Belair/Biscayne originally.And possibly 1964 model year also,which would then include Chevelles too.

[Verne_Frantz]

Larry, Do either of the T-10s have VINs on them? IF so, I'd appreciate photos. Thanks http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

Verne

[lbnaz]

Hello, For the Muncie a 64 would have a 325 case on it according to the books. I do not see a vin on either one of the T-10's. The 63 dated one has WL 73 2 and the 62 has WL 291 2 on it. Where would the vin be? Thanks, Larry.

[Verne_Frantz]

"The 63 dated one has WL 73 2 and the 62 has WL 291 2 on it. Where would the vin be? Thanks, Larry. "

Larry, the WL732 is Nov. '63 so it's a '64 trans. The T-10s had the VIN in the same place as the Muncie, but on T-10s, the assembly date was in the same spot with the VIN. IF the '62 trans has no VIN, it was probably from a 250hp Passenger car. Thanks for looking http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[Stefano]

Vern,
Not to hi-jack, but seems like a good time to ask.

I have a 1960 4 speed Impala, but It has no VIN on the T-10 Trans. Did they ever put VINs on the T-10s?

[Verne_Frantz]

The "directive" for VIN derivitives on blocks and 4-spds began in '62. All the Corvettes have them (one plant) but the practice was sporadic at the Passenger plants. I'm almost certain it was not an inspected procedure, therefore it was easily by-passed by lazy line workers. It was still sporadic through '64! So, unfortunately if you look at a hi-perf 62-3-4 car and it does not have the VIN derivitive, it does not mean it's not the original motor or trans! And even when they did stamp it, there was no "set" formality, meaning some had the plant letter designation preceeding the sequence number and some did not. There were a lot of variations in the font sizes and character styles, and some were gang stamped and many were individually stamped.
I have a pretty good collection of original examples, so if you ever run into one you're not sure of, just run it by me. I can probably tell you if it's real or not.

Verne http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[Verne_Frantz]

Larry,
This is the typical location for a VIN derivitive on an early T-10. Sometimes they got stamped a little further back on the front edge of the extension housing. This one was from a '62 Atlanta passenger car. (Dec '61 build)

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j320/VerneFrantz/Atlanta62Decsm.jpg

[lbnaz]

Hello, I found this vin on the front of the WL 73 2 trans. Thanks for all the imfo, Larry.

[Verne_Frantz]

Larry, I have no idea what those numbers are. But I do know that a Nov '63 T-10 was never installed in a new Chevy. They were switched to Muncies during April '63. BOP and Studebaker may have used them later into '63 and '64 production? The spline on the main shaft and the gear tooth counts could provide clues.

Verne

[John Brown]

Studebaker B-W's had a input with a larger diameter for the pilot bushing and longer snout for the pilot than chevys. Otherwise they looked the same.

[3macs1]

[ QUOTE ]
The "directive" for VIN derivitives on blocks and 4-spds began in '62. All the Corvettes have them (one plant) but the practice was sporadic at the Passenger plants. I'm almost certain it was not an inspected procedure, therefore it was easily by-passed by lazy line workers. It was still sporadic through '64! So, unfortunately if you look at a hi-perf 62-3-4 car and it does not have the VIN derivitive, it does not mean it's not the original motor or trans! And even when they did stamp it, there was no "set" formality, meaning some had the plant letter designation preceeding the sequence number and some did not. There were a lot of variations in the font sizes and character styles, and some were gang stamped and many were individually stamped.
I have a pretty good collection of original examples, so if you ever run into one you're not sure of, just run it by me. I can probably tell you if it's real or not.

Verne http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Verne:
From what I have seen up here you could add 65 and 66 to that list. I cannot remember seeing to many of them stamped in passenger cars.I know my 66 impala trans has no vin on it and it is original.

[Verne_Frantz]

I'll take your word for it because I've never collected data from those years. From 62-64 the passenger car VIN stamping only applied to "hi-perf" engines, which meant 300hp and above. That's why I made the comment earlier that a '62 T-10 with no VIN might have come from a 250hp 327. Or it could have just come from a plant that didn't bother to stamp them.

Verne

[Fast67VelleN2O]

Buick Grand Sports 65-66 took a borg warner T-10 with GS stamped on the tail shaft. Iron case aluminum tail shaft. I have owned two of those transes. I am sure other Buicks up to 66 have had them as well.