[Guest]

Well, it seem the meet/show in Pensacola this weekend served no better purpose than to further my own confusion. I almost picked up a bell housing, flywheel, clutch assembly and all bolts for my 1969 Mach 1/351 W. The guy told me though that the one I was looking at was for the 302 since it was alluminum. He said the one I need is cast. Another guy said I could paint an alluminum housing cast color and no one would no the difference. so here is my question (Finally), is there a strength issue I need to be concerned with that would cause me to go with cast, or is there the issue of losing points on a concourse car if I had alluminum when it should be cast. If it doesn't matter either way, what would you do?

Thanks Ya'll
ssscode

 

[Guest]

I think even the aluminum one was used on the Boss 302's, so I don't think strength would be an issue.You might suffer lost points for originality I guess at some shows as I believe the aluminum bell is visually ribbed different than the cast.The cast bells are quite common and were used up to 79 from what I have seen with the same basic C5TE casting in pickups.

1967 S code GT Deluxe Coupe 65B
1966 Convertible 76B 289 4 speed
1964 Fairlane 500 2DR HT-the new project
1986 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 the "beater"
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1573428&a=11959254&p=43023698.jpg

 

[Mike_B]

I ran into this same issue when putting the toploader in my car. I had both bellhousings available. Just picking each one up made me go with aluminum. The cast one is damn heavy! The aluminum one looked pretty tough to me too. Other than clutch failure (which only a scattershield can really help) I've never seen a aluminum bell housing fail in a street driven car. I say go for aluminum.

http://216.71.48.244/archive/mikecar.jpg



65 Fastback 289 4spd in storage :-(
91 CRX Si... A.K.A. my go-kart with AC!

 

[BernieFrank]

I believe the cast iron bellhousings for the 351 engines were built for the 164 tooth flywheel and the aluminum housings (289/302) were typically for the 157/160 tooth flywheel. This has implications for the flywheel, clutch fork, clutch, bell housing plate, and starter. I think either will fit but all parts must be compatible with each setup. There may be some exceptions to the above, but I think its true in most cases. I would guess that the 164/cast iron set up is probably stronger than the aluminum one, but I don't know if must be considered. Back in the 70s, I modified a 164 tooth aluminum marine bellhousing to accommodate both types of flywheels by adding starter bolt holes for the 157 tooth starter position.

66 Fastback
85 GT Hatchback
67 Coupe
82 GT Hatchback

 

[66gt350]

There is a little difference inbetween the two bellhousings. I recently did the C4 to toploader swap and I picked up everything from a local used parts contact. I decided to go with the aluminum, the cast one weighs a ton. I went to put everything together, when I found that there is a difference.

The flywheel I got was 164 tooth flywheel, and it would not fit into the aluminum bellhousing. So, I'm assuming that the aluminum bellhousing were for the 157 tooth flywheel.

I took the flywheel out and looked at the cast iron bellhousing and it fit just fine. Since then, I got rid of the cast for a lakewood.

So, I guess what I was trying to say was depending on the flywheel, that would determine which bellhousing you are going to need.

Rob
Member: Slightly Modified
66 coupe 302
66 fastback 351W

 

[Guest]

There is a C5A aluminum bellhousing that was used for verious applictions that uses the 164 tooth flywheel and 11" clutch, I have one in my 66, I picked the bellhousing up a Carlisle for $20 a couple of years ago.But I agree, most of the aluminum bellhousings you will find will be the C5D casting for the smaller flywheel.

1967 S code GT Deluxe Coupe 65B
1966 Convertible 76B 289 4 speed
1964 Fairlane 500 2DR HT-the new project
1986 Jeep Cherokee 4X4 the "beater"
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1573428&a=11959254&p=43023698.jpg