Powerglide Out Turbo 200 In Jack "the Captain" McCarthy

[bill dedman]

Thanks for the kind wods, Bruce!!!! It's nice to be back.

I feel there's nothhing remotely "bogus" about this deall. It has simply been overlooked for too many years. Everyone seems to agree that it's a 3 speed transmission except the NHRA Tech Dept.
Maybe it's because you can't feel the gear changes, I dunno...
speed (Metric 200?) although they could have come with a 3 speed, originally (Turboglide.)

Time to rectify
To me, the "big deal" is that, for example, you can legally use a 904 behind a 340 (a never-b uilt OEM application), while the Turboglide (3 speed) claim for cars like- Cap' Jackk's 283 wagon are denied the opportuunity to swap to an alternative 3 this long-standing injustice,,,

Justt my 2 cents....

[bill dedman]

Thanks for the kind wods, Bruce!!!! It's nice to be back.

I feel there's nothhing remotely "bogus" about this deall. It has simply been overlooked for too many years. Everyone seems to agree that it's a 3 speed transmission except the NHRA Tech Dept.
Maybe it's because you can't feel the gear changes, I dunno...
Not allowed a swap to a 3 speed (Metric 200?) although they could have come with a 3 speed, originally (Turboglide.)


To me, the "big deal" is, for example, 340 Dusters are allowed a 904 (a never-b uilt OEM application), while the Turboglide (3 speed) claim for cars like- Cap' Jackk's 283 wagon are denied the opportuunity to swap to an alternative 3 speed. Time to rectify this long-standing injustice,,,

Justt my 2 cents....

[Bruce Noland]

Bill,

Bogus is the word for many of the parts that have been accepted. My point is this transmission swap deserves serious consideration by nhra.

[Jim Cimarolli]

Originally Posted by 63corvette

The chevelles info I believe is not correct. I can say fairly for certain the 396 engine option required the turbo 400 option for an auto trans in 67 and 68. Not sure about the 66. I worked at a GM dealership in the late 60's and had access to the order forms. From my recolection a powerglide was not an option in 67 or 68 in the 396 chevelles.
My 2 Cents

Well, if I'm wrong about this I'm blind. I personally have seen and rode in all three year models that I mentioned in my earlier post with Powerglides behind a 396-325 in a Chevelle. I have 2 buddies that bought new SS Chevelles in '68, one of them was a Turbo, the other was a Powerglide. Oh, and I also worked at a GM dealership in the late 60's.

Jim Cimarolli

[WCW]

Am i missing something.Did not nhra pass 3 speeds in all powerglide cars or was that just for super stock.
thanks....clarence
I also had a friend that had a p/g in a 396 66 chevell.

[bsa633]

Nothing against this deal but why are we continous trying to change stuff thats been one way almost "forever" or atleast a very long time?Individuals gain but the class loose in my opinion,it's the HP factors that should make it work,not "new found" parts.(AHFS is another subject) I guess this should be another thread (or poll) too.

p.s. if this deal and others like it comes along..should they have unmolested HP in those cases that has been changed since they never was run like that in NHRA before?

[Chuck Norton]

Good morning, PA,

This issue is a little different than most, I believe. There are a few issues that make it so. In the first place, this is not a question of something being new. It's actually something that's so old that it's laughable. i remember that transmission well. I even had one in a '58 Nomad for a while. It was so bad in terms of performance and durability that a cast iron 'Glide was a step up. I suspect that the reason it's not in the Guide is because it was so bad that it was never considered and would never have been considered had not a combination of other liberalized rules opened the back door to making it an advantage. When the rule allowing the substitution of ANY OEM 3-speed transmission to replace an ORIGINAL 3-speed was slipped into the books (probably on the grounds of expediency and preserving the creases in the clothing of diligent tech inspectors) this is one issue that became a "no-brainer." An unintended "no-brainer" but one nevertheless.

In the second place, I believe that you can count the number of 1960 and '61 Chevies competing in Stock Eliminator today on one finger. That could possibly be an exaggeration but I don't think so. Even if the substitution of a modern 3-speed transmission in those models were to be authorized, I doubt that there will be a mad rush on the part of racers to construct a herd of Brookwood wagons or Impala hardtops. It wouldn't put them into the position of dominating Stock Eliminator. In fact, they wouldn't likely dominate the classes in which they run. For example, U/SA is already populated with cars that have more "legislated advantages" than could ever be dreamed up for the Brookwood.

In the third place, if it did become a huge advantage, what could it possibly harm? What if Jack McCarthy qualified in the Top Ten at Indy? Would the earth stop turning? If he insisted on flaunting his newly found dominance excessively, would he not be subject to the terms of AHFS? Would not the "system" correct itself in the same way that it has corrected combinations like the LS1, the 6-Pack GTX, and the aluminum-headed big blocks?

At the end of the day (and that will come sooner rather than later for a lot of us old donkeys), this is not much more than a fun topic because allowing the lone 1960 Chevrolet Brookwood wagon to benefit from the same rules as a 1967 Camaro that now has a Metric 200 in place of it's power-sucking T400 is simply the right thing to do. It isn't a back-door, politically inspired, 40 year after-the-fact, file cabinet discovery. It's the result of a rule that was changed by the Organization fifteen years ago for whatever reason, that opened a door that no one anticipated, and is being stonewalled, apparently because racers introduced it instead of the Organization.

I think it's cool!

Highest regards,

c

[bsa633]

Chuck...i was not against this specific deal...as you say it's a nobrainer..just that stuff/specs gets changed after a looooong time...i think it feeds the "i want some too" mentality.. should probably just put what i said in another thread! CYA Chuck!!

[Jack McCarthy]

geez guys... my heartfelt thanks for all of the support... and i will petition NHRA again for the three speed... hell i might just show up at indy with one ... that statement ought to get me a good tech inspection !

i admit the last time it was discussed (late 1980's) i was told it was like the olds/buick hydramatic with the switch pitch convertor... but mr holder assures me it has two gearsets plus direct drive so i agree it is a no-brainer... however we are dealing with NHRA tech which also fits the no-brains description.

anyway rest assured a letter to garcia/lang/wesley and travis is in the email today...

captain jack

p.s. chuck 1. - technically i claim "Kingswood 9 pass" 2. some guy is building a 60- vette... so that would make two 3. - your right i still would be chasing Bob Shaw's killer fuelie caddy

[Bruce Noland]

Jack,

Have you checked any of the old Chilton Books for verification of this transmission?

Many years ago, I worked in a little two bay shop. We had some of those old Chilton books, and my memory may be failing me, but I seem to remember seeing one of those old Dinosaurs in one of those books. A big old dark green book with lots of greasy finger prints.