It was always my understanding that in 68 only L-88's came with M-22 transmissions, most literture list 80 L-88 produced and 80 M-22 produced. I had assumed only these went in the L-88's. I have run across a one owner matching no. L-89 with a M-22. The owner states the drain plug was not added. Any comments?
-
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
Phil -
What is the casting number on the main case? 68's used the 5660 case, and only M22's had the drain plug with that casting number (unless it was added during a rebuild, which was pretty common). The 5661 casting ('70-up) all had drain plugs, regardless of type. The Muncie "P"-code and VIN derivative stampings should also make sense with the car's VIN and build date, but those can be added/altered as well. -
Re: M-22 in a L-89
John The Cast No is 5660 the VIN matches the rest of the nos. are P 8 E 07 the car was built May 7 68 bought new in New Mexico by a returning Air force Pilot He swears the transmisssion has never out or rebuilt or drain plug placed. It is a 53,000 mile car. Also has HD 4:11 rear end Code FB.Comment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
Phil-----
If I'm reading you correctly and the car was built on May 7, 1968, then the transmission production code would indicate that it was built on the same day. That would be highly unusual, although not impossible if the car's body was completed on May 7 and the car not completed for some time due to rare circumstances.
In any event, do you know that the transmission is actually an M-22? It's possible, I suppose, that some 1968 Muncie M-20/21 were built with a drain plug. The Muncie plant could have run out of the non-drain plug '660' cases and decided to use up some excess stock of the drain plug type. That's purely speculation, of course, but it's very possible.
Also, does the car have any original documentation such as build sheet, window stick, original order, etc. That would end all speculation. Cars that folks "swear were built a certain way" but, "coincidentally", for which exist no original documentation are highly suspect, in my opinion.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
The truth lies in the original paperwork.Comment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
The built date for the car was May 15,68 the frame lettering was for may 7,68 and the build sheet on the tank is deteriorated to the point that's not much left and is useless, I have not looked for a dash sheet yet! I have known the car since 1975 when I ran a Vette shop and serviced the car routinly before going back to school in 1983. It has just sat in the guy basement since then just like I left it in 1983. Strange???Comment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
Joe- This is on and off topic. Where's the build sheets on a 1965 convertible?? Couldn't find a tank sheet and don't know where else to look. Thanks- as usual.Comment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
Tom-----
The tank sticker is one copy of the build sheet. Another may sometimes be found under the dash, tucked up above the steering column or the heater box. The under dash location to find a build sheet is much more common on C3s than C2s, though.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS
that you have not ACTUALLY read the serial # of the car off the transmission and you have not ACTUALLY verified that it is an M-22 - so what do you want folks on this Board to do for you?Comment
-
Re: SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS
Loren With all due respect, if you had read the first post, you would know the numbers all match and the trans is a M-22. My question was had anyone else has any experice with a 68 L-89 with a M-22 that appears to factory.Comment
-
Re: M-22 in a L-89
Build sheets were not included on the tank until 1967...your 65 would not have one...CraigComment
-
So you have SEEN the VIN # for this
car stamped into the case and you have had the side cover off an verified the M-22 gears - this is NOT a question of the "5660" case and a "claim" by the owner. Have you RIDDEN in the car to evaluate the noise level?Comment
Comment