t10 vs muncie

[Jay Johnson]

I am looking at a 62 340. It has the correct bell housing, linkage, clutch setup, Etc. It has a muncie m-21 out of a 66 Corvette instead of the original Borg Warner T-10. The engine is correct and the car seems very nice as well as original appearing otherwise. Why would someone change to an M-21 over the stock and does that significantly hurt the cars value/NCRS judging ability? Thanks much, Jay.

[William C.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

The Muncie is an inherently more robust transmission design. If noticed, there would be a deduction in flight judging for the muncie, but I don't believe it carries a lot of points.

[Tom D.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Check the Muncie for oil leaking out the front, between the bellhousing and the front of the trans. Pressure on the counter gear makes the counter gear shaft hole go "out of round". It's aluminum.

Also, I don't know if the bellhousing would be correct, unless the front bearing retainer on the T-10 was the same size as the 66 Muncie. If it was a 63, I could tell you the bell had a smaller hole than later mid-years. Very Early Muncies had a bearing retainer the same size as the three speed trans.

Tom 4889

[William C.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

All muncies except the '63 had a common bellhousing collar size with the '62 and esrlier T-10. The '63 is the only oddball year in the C-1 C-2 era

[Dick W.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

And you might be surprised as to how many judges miss (perish the thought of something missed ) the Muncie.

[Frank H.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

I feel transmission are one of the lesser issues in buying 30-40 year old cars,most (post 60)trans. sell for about the same price range.
Compared to other bigger ticket items.
I sold my muncie for 200.00 over what I paid for the T-10

[Joe R.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Jay,

You will find that by 1963 serial numbers in the 14,000 all 1963's had Muncie transmissions. They also used the small three speed bearing and an aluminum bearing retainer. These transmissions are rather hard to find as compared to the abundance of 1963 T-10's.

Also, there are several good articles in "The Restorer" that detail the differences along with all the part numbers for 1963 Muncies and T-10's.

Don't let the transmission stop you from purchasing a classic 1963 Corvette. That is one of the easiest problems to fix as there are several restorers of transmissions waiting to solve your transmission problems.

Regards,

JR

[Jay Johnson]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Thanks for the reply. The car is a 62. Is the value still preserved if the car has a Muncie?

[Joe R.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Jay,

Oops, somewhere along the thread I must have had a senior moment and translated your 62 340 into a 63 340. DUH!

The value of the 62 should not be affected by the muncie trans. There are plenty of T-10 to replace the Muncie if you wish.

Regards,

JR

[Christopher R.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

In the 60s and 70s, the car would have been worth more because it had a Muncie. Muncies were (and are) considered better transmissions. The Muncie will bolt right up to the stock '62 bell housing. Use the same clutch linkage. Won't be seen unless somebody crawls under the car. Replacing the T10 with a Muncie was SOP until the NCRS made "numbers matching" important in the 80s.

The driveshaft yoke, clutch disc (I think), and the reverse rod on the shifter are different. But nobody sees them either. You'll need to remember that though when you do a clutch job in the future.

Don't remember if the stock '62 shifter bolts to the Muncie. Most people would have replaced that too with a Hurst in the day.

[Jay Johnson]

Re: t10 vs muncie

I thought the term numbers matching meant that the engine matched the car?
Is the T-10 transmission an integral part of the numbers matching term?
Thanks much.
Jay

[Dennis A.]

For Judging, Everthing must match *NM*

[Harmon C.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Jay Out of 100 people looking to buy a 62 I would guess less than 5 would know or care what tramsmission it had. Paint sells Red helps. As for judging get a copy of the sheets and see how many points are for the trans,bellhousing and shifter. About 30 is a ball park figure. Lyle

[Michael W.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

Jay,

The term 'numbers matching' is pretty nebulous and vague and not used in NCRS flight judging. Best read up on how NCRS flight judging works if this is a goal of yours.

A good example is that the engine stamp pad is examined for 'correctness' including VIN if applicable, but the VIN stamp on the frame and transmission is NOT examined.

There's more to the numbers game than meets the eye.

[Chris H.]

Re: t10 vs muncie

"A good example is that the engine stamp pad is examined for 'correctness' including VIN if applicable, but the VIN stamp on the frame and transmission is NOT examined."

I am a bit confused about the note above. Per the 62 JGM it says the VIN on the trans should match the engine/vehicle. I would think that if it did not match it would be marked down as not original?

Chris