[Old Man Taylor]

For what it is worth, Jim Wangers said that no '64 GTO's got the close ratio transmission. He said there was a shortage of them and they all went to the Corvettes. Have you confirmed any in original cars?

[War eagle]

John the only listing in 3.429 is for a 61 T/4 SHIELD PKG. The revised page is 6-1-64. I recall in 1967 and up working at Chevy, that an under the counter book was avail for some most interesting hop up parts. These included items not always in the regular parts catalog for the year. Blocks especially, and without an origin or code like ZL1 Z16 etc. Only a part number. You had to 'be in the know' AND I recall a few orders that were filled, without us on the counter knowing what we were ordering. (we pried open the crates and could see strange things)
I am still a bit suspicious of the double top and bottom curved bracket. Darn`t I think I have seen that on something years ago but just can`t place where. I recall a fello in school with a 59 GMC and Pontiac engine (factory) and hours fiddling with a trips we installed on it. It could have been there. How about Pete McCarthy. This guy would know. Most folks I knew created progressive linkage with ready rod and a couple nuts. It never occured to anyone around here or in Speedy Bill`s catalog, JC Whitney or Honest Charlies to use a rod and barrel that could slip out and go wild.

[John V.]

Jim, not to denigrate Mr. Wangers, but if that was his claim, he simply didn't know what he was talking about.

The reason no early '64 GTO got a close ratio Muncie was because Pontiac did not release one for use in the Tempest series at the start of '64 production.

It would have been very easy for Muncie to assemble the close ratio to meet any demand Pontiac would have burdened them with. There was no shortage.

Instead, Pontiac released two different versions of the wide ratio, one for use with all rear gears except 3.90. It had the 8 tooth internal speedo drive gear. The other was for use with the 3.90, it had the 6 tooth internal speedo drive gear. Each had its own p/n, and a tag with that p/n was attached to the side cover.

All Tempests that were equipped with the 3.90 axle and optioned with the 4 spd were to have their engine blocks stamped with a 9 and received the appropriate version of the wide ratio trans. Those with other than a 3.90 and optioned with the 4 spd got the "W" version of the wide ratio trans.

Late in the year, Pontiac released the close ratio trans under p/n 9777000. It could be had ONLY with very specific option conditions, notably, GTO, Tri-Power, 3.90, metallic brakes, Safe-T-Track. You could NOT get it without the GTO option and you could NOT get it with a 4 bbl GTO. So it was intended to be a very LIMITED option.

It was the code "8" trans, identified by Sales Code 778 and UPC M21.

I have only uncovered one '64 GTO that was equipped with this trans.

It was ordered new by the brother of a contributor here, acaceca. He has the original Window Sticker and at last report the original trans with the matching stamped VIN although I believe he was willing to sell the trans. The GTO is long gone IIRC.

It was built mid May at Fremont. The Fremont Window Stickers listed the UPC and the Sales Code, so this one shows 778 and M21. It also listed all of the additional expected mandatory options as required in order to get the close ratio trans.

When I first connected with aceaceca, he had no idea how rare this option was, all he knew was that he had a close ratio that was original to his brother's '64 GTO. And he happened to have kept the Window Sticker, without that, the evidence would have been sketchy.

The revised 8 page GTO Brochure with the date April 17, 1964 identifies the availability of the close ratio trans. The earlier version of this brochure makes no mention of the availabilty of the close ratio.

Also, the December 21, 1963 of the Tempest Inspectors Guide which compiled all engineering releases to that point in the year makes no mention of the close ratio, only lists the p/ns for the 2 different versions of the wide ratio along with their associated applications by axle ratio.

The idea that a shortage of close ratio trannies was the reason 3.90 axle '64 GTOs came with wide ratio 4 spds is a myth that needs to die. They got a specific version of the wide ratio because that is what Pontiac intended and the only choice available until late year.

Once released, you could STILL get a 3.90 axle Tripower GTO with the wide ratio, you didn't have to order the close ratio. Same continued to be true in '65.

The 8000 mile GTO was confirmed to have the correct code 9 wide ratio 4 spd in a thread back in April.

I would love to be able to comb thru the '64 PHS records to see if any other '64 GTOs were built with the code 8 close ratio. So far, I only know of the one. I'm sure there would not be many, but I suspect there would be a few.

[John V.]

War Eagle, thanks for checking, that T/4 shield is also in the '66 MPC, only other part besides the (2) '64 Mech Linkage Packages.

Wish somebody had some bulletin announcing them.

But it sounds like you are not convinced the Lever Extension is the one from the '64 Package. I believe it is correct with 100% certainty but without the mythical never been opened NOS p/n Package to prove it, it remains just my opinion!

As far as the plunger set-up, as mentioned previously, those parts predated the '64 usage. PMD used those for the Mech Linkage Dealer Accessory Packages all the way back to when the kits were first issued, circa 1958. You can find the p/ns for them as I posted in early MPCs for sure.

[War eagle]

The Speed Mechanics article does show the extension John. The article mentions Wangers involved with the car. It`s interesting to also note the ovious different welding skills that show up on those altered throttle cable brkts. An early photo done on the Wangers car at Royal shows a slightly tipped up version and the spring mount bent more inboard. That is why I said earlier that the double curve and lower leg offset really would be a problem solver.
Also John I think the engineering drawing was for a large car with automatic.

[War eagle]

Just one point. I would think for judging that the early triangle extension as well as the double curve piece should be considered correct. Royal kits and their Pontiac involment was part of every 64 GTO article in those early 63-64 magazines and as later confirmed by interviews, they had a MORE than a healthy mail order business. I believe they probably sold the bulk of linkage kits and later Pontiac Engineering offered their parts kit. The small number of these probably indicates limited sales. Examining the double curved part shows that some major stamping dies would be required along with multiple operations. Definitely didn`t pay for the developement and most likely didn`t get widely announced like Royals mention in the major magazines.

[John V.]

W.E., what makes you think automatic about the drawing? I have no clue about big cars.

But everything I have seen always points to the Mechanical Linkage ONLY being offered for the Man Trans application.

This instruction sheet identifies p/ns 529814 and 529815 but calls them both "ROD ASS'Y", doesn't pin down the application any further. And I don't know any reason you couldn't install Mech Linkage on an auto trans car.

I'm just curious what clue suggests that this instruction sheet is specific to auto trans?

Point taken about which should be judged "correct".

The counterpoint is that NEITHER should be judged "correct" if correct means "factory correct".

For judging, I'd still want to see a complete Vac setup.

Judging aside, for my taste I prefer to see the GTO Kit, since it was specifically intended for that application, I think it results in a "cleaner" more "elegant" setup compared to using the triangular extension. But that is a small quibble.

[War eagle]

John I agree and do like the problem solver style extension and perhaps with the slider and stud style linkage, would install on my car. In fact I know I would just to get rid of that ugly J strap.

I think this could be manufactured without going overseas. (I still groan thinking about the after market throttle cable and its metal to metal cable saw). The basic blank is simply 1/8th cold rolled and without one in hand could only guess the minimum press tonnage. Fairly small like it appears, should get the initial hit somewhere around 65 to 80ton. This is a small punch press. It looks like some secondary folds could be done at way less but the creation of either a CNC brake program or just manual limit indexers could do it. Probably the dies could be scrounged from other used dies which saves a bundle and a die maker/milling machine put to work. Or maybe someone here has a small CNC machining center to create a simple punch and die set program. The press here is rated at 46 ton but I think 38 is closer to its used condition. COME ON CNC OPERATORS-STEP FORWARD.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by War eagle

I am still a bit suspicious of the double top and bottom curved bracket. Darn`t I think I have seen that on something years ago but just can`t place where. I recall a fello in school with a 59 GMC and Pontiac engine (factory) and hours fiddling with a trips we installed on it. It could have been there. How about Pete McCarthy. This guy would know. Most folks I knew created progressive linkage with ready rod and a couple nuts. It never occured to anyone around here or in Speedy Bill`s catalog, JC Whitney or Honest Charlies to use a rod and barrel that could slip out and go wild.

I would disagree with you about Pete McCarthy "Knowing" about this Linkage.

Here is why. I met Pete McCarthy first at the 1991 GTOAA Louisville, Kentucky event when it was held there. I met him again at the 1992 GTOAA Lincolnshire, Illinois event the next year. At the 1992 event I showed him the paperwork for my 1964 GTO (the info from the Pontiac lady at PMD. I also mentioned that I had mechanical linkage on my car when I received it. That was "poo pooed" by Pete. Pete also said my codes were wrong. John V has proven that my codes were correct from "the lady".

During the swap meet event, which was held inside a building on the grounds, I was able to find a second set of the Mechanical Linkage parts and immediately bought them and showed them to Pete. Again, he said he had never seen parts like the ones I showed him. Those parts were the second set of parts I acquired. Over the years I have located and own or know of owners of at least 10 more sets of parts. Most times they own only part of the parts. This Colin Comer claims to have a original car with the original parts installed. His picture shows a bolt in the top hole location where the detent is on the factory lever. I am not sure what Terry Hunt's carb lever looks like (Drilled Hole or spacer style mount). He has a Mechanical linkage set-up on his car.

You cannot go by my car as I already know my car was modded by the Rochester Products People. I believe Dick B modded his carb lever for the same mounting as Colin has.

My Box of Mechanical Linkage Parts did not have an instruction sheet. The previous owner of the parts either took it or it was never there in the first place.

To question whether the Mechanical Linkage parts are factory is a bit slow on the draw. The parts have already been proven to be Pontiac parts.

Tom Vaught

I believe Dick was at the Lincolnshire event, I know Bill Ryder was there. I might have purchased the Mechanical Linkage parts before Dick B ever saw them.

[bill ryder]

AHMEN ole' friend. That was a good show. In the "winners circle", yea. Bob V. was there also, dancing the night away with my daughter!! Remember??? ditto.

[War eagle]

Tom. Yup slow on the draw is what I`m called. However 'drop the ball Tom' is also out there. WHAT DID PETE SAY HE WAS USING FOR LINKAGE?

[Tom Vaught]

I did not ask him, as I really did not care what he used in the early Big Car Racing days.

By then, at Lincolnshire, he was into the 4 bbl mode.

He also was into trying to make a lot of people happy when his book fell apart (1st printing) so I left him alone for the most part.

I was buying Arnie B a dinner when the Steak House would not take his coupon. His Buddy was running a 63 Tempest and the Playboy Bunny was driving the car. Arnie was signing autographs all day. Man, those Chicago people (all races) loved that man.

Pete obviously did not use the 64 "Kit Linkage" as he did not know what it looked like. That means he had to have run the old Tri-power SD linkage or a Hot Rod linkage.

So how did I "drop the ball" on this topic? I am one of the people providing info (that you can take to the bank) on the parts.

Tom Vaught

[War eagle]

You dropped the ball when you didn`t continue the story and tell us what he used? However now you have and it doesn`t add much. What I recall from his book is that almost immediately from the showroom, Pete`s new 1964 GTO underwent a rear axle gear change, and somewhere they lifted up the motor to install headers. I think he stated that the swap was good for several faster time slips. So I had hoped that maybe he mentioned the Royal treatment linkage etc. At the time I think there was Ansen or maybe some other outfit making linkage/mechanical. It would be hard to believe that Pete was using the vac setup. I am very much on board with the double curve linkage Tom and glad you can verify more than one.

[Old Man Taylor]

In '64 I was unaware of any factory mechanical linkage. I bought a kit from Eelco that really didn't work very well. It activated the rear carb from the passenger side of the center carb, therefore requiring all the activation force to go through the throttle shaft. They provided a new throttle shaft that protruded from the pasenger side of the center carb, but it wasn't strong enough. I broke it several times before modifying the setup.

[Tom Vaught]

War Eagle, just so we don't confuse people further, why don't we agree to call the 1964 Factory Mechanical Linkage what John V has been calling it for a couple of years now: The 1964 GTO "KIT LINKAGE" vs your "Double Curve" name?

There was a "Kit" that could be assembled and installed (if you knew the right Group Numbers and Part Numbers) available in late 1964 for the 64 GTO and Big Car Tri-Power engines. We are still discussing, in my mind, what parts actually went into a Order-able "Kit" of parts vs what extra parts besides the kit parts needed to be ordered. John V, do you think there actually was an ASSEMBLY of parts "sheet" somewhere in the Pontiac system?

Tom Vaught

I have no bone to pick with you, War Eagle. I don't think I ever heard Pete McCarthy
ever state that he was a Pontiac God and had all of the answers even if he did write a couple of books. We have a lot of great guys who have written books over the years.

[John V.]

Tom, knowing what I know about engineering drawings, I definitely think there was an Assembly drawing detailing the Mechanical Linkage parts for each of the '64 Kits. IMO, the drawing for p/ns 9777060 and 9777061 would have been those drawings.

I would expect that it would have included the Bill of Material for each individual part in the kit along with some sort of parts "explosion" detailing the location of those parts.

Perhaps a separate drawing with its own p/n may have been issued for that purpose, but either way, I would be extremely surprised if it didn't exist.

I would expect that it would have looked something like the drawing I posted earlier, which looks to have been assigned p/n 541158 if I read it correctly.

The earlier Linkage packages were assigned Dealer Accessory Package p/ns, formatted as 98xxxx, 6 digit nos. used for that purpose.

I'm not sure why the '64 Packages did not get a Dealer Accessory Package p/n assigned to them in that format, but the 7 digit 97xxxxx engineering p/n format tha WAS used, is easily recognized as an engineering drawing no.

JMO.

Tom, the "double curve" or "crossed finger" name is useful for visualizing/describing the Lever Extension as compared to the earlier triangular Lever Extension so has its place, I refer to the '64 GTO kit Package when referring to the complete group of parts that would have been included in making the conversion.

Keep in mind, for whatever reason, Pontiac DID service the individual parts as I listed in an earlier post, including the Lever Extension, as well as the kit Package. So it was possible to acquire the Lever Extension without purchasing the entire kit Package. Not sure why, but they did. I don't think this was true of the earlier Mech Linkage Packages which I don't think were serviced except as a complete Package.

[Tom Vaught]

Well, War Eagle, John V just gave me a reason to call the 64 GTO Extension Lever a "Double Curve" extension. I apologize.

Tom Vaught

[bill ryder]

have a 64 GTO that was built with a special mechanical tri-power linkage. The linkage is
different from a early 61 SD tri-power linkage, it
does not resemble the 1965 "J" bar center carb
linkage, or the repop linkage for the 64 that is supposed to be same as 1965.

The rear carb mechanical lever is swedged on the shaft (same as a factory one). The throttle plate screws are peaned with the same tool that the peaned the later 65 and 66 screws and the screws have never been changed.
The lever on the center carb has two position holes.
The rear lever also has two position holes. (like a 61 sd linkage)

The base plate casting is for a 64 and is not a 65 or 66 model year part.

The linkage uses the 61 SD style tube and plunger type
rod system vs the "captured pin and slot" deal that
is on the 65 and 66 units.

The center carb tri-power arm is a multi-curved machine
formed part. I was able to acquire 6 other arms over the years for the GTO part number which I found in the parts book under 64 w/ manual trans. I also acquired an NOS unit from a gentleman by accident when he sent me a bunch of NOS parts in boxes to build up a 64 GTO vacuum unit for him. The box was sealed until I opened it.

I have ONE 64 Big Car mechanical tri-power arm which is like the GTO arm except the forming tool removed the yellow spring attaching point on the arm. The big car had the return spring as part of the firewall
mechanism in 1964. The part number for this arm is also in the parts book.

Terry Hunt, a member of this board has a second complete mechanical set-up on his car which he believes was original from the factory.

Has anyone else ever seen a linkage/ set-up like I have described on a 64 GTO?

Once I figure out how to get digital pics of the parts I will post then under this topic.

Tom V.

ps I am not saying my car is representative of a production car as my car was a factory Zone Car.
The car was built in April. Several Pontiac employees
and Mr. Bill Sherman (deceased) (owner of the red
64 GTO test car when he was alive) have told me this
was possibly a mechanical tri-power test mule.

My car was also built with a real wood woodgrain dash
over the swirl turned GTO insert. Mr Sherman told me Pontiac did a test market of that feature in late 64 also.

Any help would be appreciated.

Tom V.
__________________


"Some guys, they just give up living and start dying little by little,
and piece by piece. Some guys come home from work, and wash up,
and go racing in the street" So Very True!

Bruce Springsteen, Racing in The Street

"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught


Tom Vaught
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Tom Vaught
Visit Tom Vaught's homepage!
Find all posts by Tom Vaught
Add Tom Vaught to Your Contacts

#1 05-24-2004, 05:07 PM
Tom Vaught
PY VIP
At that time NO ONE replied!!! Now look at the posts!!!!

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by bill ryder

have a 64 GTO that was built with a special mechanical tri-power linkage. The linkage is
different from a early 61 SD tri-power linkage, it
does not resemble the 1965 "J" bar center carb
linkage, or the repop linkage for the 64 that is supposed to be same as 1965.

The rear carb mechanical lever is swedged on the shaft (same as a factory one). The throttle plate screws are peaned with the same tool that the peaned the later 65 and 66 screws and the screws have never been changed.
The lever on the center carb has two position holes.
The rear lever also has two position holes. (like a 61 sd linkage)

The base plate casting is for a 64 and is not a 65 or 66 model year part.

The linkage uses the 61 SD style tube and plunger type
rod system vs the "captured pin and slot" deal that
is on the 65 and 66 units.

The center carb tri-power arm is a multi-curved machine
formed part. I was able to acquire 6 other arms over the years for the GTO part number which I found in the parts book under 64 w/ manual trans. I also acquired an NOS unit from a gentleman by accident when he sent me a bunch of NOS parts in boxes to build up a 64 GTO vacuum unit for him. The box was sealed until I opened it.

I have ONE 64 Big Car mechanical tri-power arm which is like the GTO arm except the forming tool removed the yellow spring attaching point on the arm. The big car had the return spring as part of the firewall
mechanism in 1964. The part number for this arm is also in the parts book.

Terry Hunt, a member of this board has a second complete mechanical set-up on his car which he believes was original from the factory.

Has anyone else ever seen a linkage/ set-up like I have described on a 64 GTO?

Once I figure out how to get digital pics of the parts I will post then under this topic.

Tom V.

ps I am not saying my car is representative of a production car as my car was a factory Zone Car.
The car was built in April. Several Pontiac employees
and Mr. Bill Sherman (deceased) (owner of the red
64 GTO test car when he was alive) have told me this
was possibly a mechanical tri-power test mule.

My car was also built with a real wood woodgrain dash
over the swirl turned GTO insert. Mr Sherman told me Pontiac did a test market of that feature in late 64 also.

Any help would be appreciated.

Tom V.
__________________


"Some guys, they just give up living and start dying little by little,
and piece by piece. Some guys come home from work, and wash up,
and go racing in the street" So Very True!

Bruce Springsteen, Racing in The Street

"Engineers do stuff for reasons" Tom Vaught

At that time NO ONE replied!!! Now look at the posts!!!!

Funny how that works isn't it Bill.

I also made a comment about a wood-grain dash insert on my car.

I received this note a couple of days ago. Maybe John V can check it out.

"I have the PHS documentation showing the car was built in the Fremont Plant on 2/18/64. it also shows a code that looks lik 810, B10 or B1C (Insert Panel). The microfish copy is difficult to read. This may be the information you was looking for verifying that the wood grain was an actual option on the car or you may have information verifying what the code really is referring to."

Any info for the man, John?

Tom Vaught

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by John V.

The GTO Package was p/n 9777060, the big car Package was p/n 9777061.

John, where are you getting these part numbers and how do you know what was included in the packages? Do you have any supporting documentation that you can post?