My 300K trans is not too long for this work. It works, but I can tell.
I picked up a core from an early 1965 Chrysler. They made the switch from the two pumps to the single pump during 1965. You can see the note about serial numbers in the 1965 parts
book.
I really like having a rear pump. Coming down mountain roads the rear pump causes the converter to act as an engine brake. You can also push start them as I found out in high school
when my cheap batteries would die in January.
You can get any part you need for a torque flite, so why not just rebuild yours?
One item worth mentioning is the input shaft endplay. A lot of shops will give you a hard time on this. Demand they do it before they touch the trans. The thread I ran across
on this subject some years back. I will copy and paste it here:
*****************
Hemi Anderson wrote:
Humbly, I will tell you that I was at least one of the originators of [the 1971 front clutch bushing], if not the only originator. The other modification I suggested at that time was to reduce the input shaft end play down to 0.016 - 0.034 inch.
In 1968, I took a job as transmission mechanic at Will-Mar Dodge on LaBrea Blvd in Los Angeles. Sometime in 1969, the Service Manager told me that an almost new Dodge Polara was being brought in with transmission trouble. The transmission had failed and been
repaired two or three times. A factory representative was to observe the disassembly.
With the transmission on the bench, the first thing was to check the input shaft end play. It felt like a good quarter of an inch. Removing the front pump/reaction shaft support, we saw good reason for all that end play!
The reaction shaft support was destroyed where the front clutch retainer rides, the seal ring lands had eaten into the front clutch retainer and the bushing was destroyed. Both the input shaft and the output shaft were heavily scored where the thrust washer
rode between them.
The representative asked me what I thought had caused the failure. My answer was the input shaft end play was too great; the specifications allow too much clearance, (0.034 to 0.084 inch). My recommendation was 0.016 inches to as little more as possible. This
would prevent the front clutch retainer from wobbling on the reaction shaft support, especially with that narrow retainer bushing, causing wear to the front clutch retainer and the resulting front clutch failure. Clearance is controlled by a selective thrust
washer on the reaction shaft support, available in 3 thicknesses. The other was that the front clutch retainer bushing was too narrow, and I suggested it be widened.
I had no idea that they would consider upgrading to a wider front clutch retainer bushing, so the end play was my primary suggestion. There could have been other, similar failures, but the timing seems strangely related.
Sometime around 1998, I had a phone call from a gentleman who asked me if I was the same "Hemi" who had worked at Will-Mar Dodge in the 1960s. He told me that he had been the owner of that Dodge Polara and had recently sold it; and, since I had repaired his
transmission in 1969, he had not had any further issues. This was with a front clutch retainer that still had the narrow bushing, proving that reduced end play plays a greater role in preventing failure than the wider bushing. The wider bushing could tolerate
greater end play, so the cure was resolved that way by Chrysler. It is still my opinion that less end play is the way to go in either case.
I have to think that this incident in 1969 had some impact on upgrading to the wider bushing in 1971. Line mechanics in dealerships don't get any credit, though.
Certain items were altered in the 1965 model year: enlarging of the torque converter splines on some 1965 models, elimination of their flanged output shaft, and changing the shift mechanism from two cables to one rod-and-lever arrangement. These changes have
been incorporated on A-904s and 727s since 1966.
Modifications made since 1966 have been small and related to longevity and driver comfort. 1971 saw the wider front clutch bushing that eliminated premature ring and drum wear. I consider this to be the best modification, as far as high performance is concerned.
********************************
From: chrysler-300-club-international@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<chrysler-300-club-international@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Rick Clapham
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2025 11:09
To: Ron Waters <ronbo97@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: jachasegso <jachasegso@xxxxxxxxx>; Chrysler 300 Club International <chrysler-300-club-international@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: {Chrysler 300} 1964 300K- Original Transmission just went out today
Rebuild it. I can get you part if you want.
--
For archives go to
http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chrysler 300 Club International" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/CAFpZmeHMJsc3Vy%2BXWbt7-O56K3tgKf8HLFM9J_yPXpYRVmS%3D-w%40mail.gmail.com.
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network
Archive Sitemap