65 vs 66 727 trans

mopar_4life

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
652
Reaction score
239
Location
Converse, TX
hello all,

I am going to be sending in my 65 trans for a good rebuild. I know is a cable shift. I was wondering if I should. Would it be better to find a later transmission that had a lock up converter or partial throttle lockdown? But I honestly don’t know crap about them and the internet isn’t really being my friend when trying to figure out the options. So I guess the real question is what are the differences between 65 and the later 727.
 
How much later is the question? Part throttle kickdown didn't hit the scene till 69-70, not sure which?
 
well later 70's motorhome with a lockup converter and you have to change out your steering column for the different shifter linkage . be the later long bushing pump can be assembled in the early case . we just did one for my 64 type writer p/u . was a lot of fitting time to get everything just so . but that can be done . the later lock up converter is another animal . remember that tranny you had in your car lasted a long time as a driver . is it still a driver or a toy ?
 
It is going to depend a lot on what year car you have and which motor. Your '65 will have a 727 transmission, a reliable unit regardless if it is a cable or hard linkage shift model. If you are running a 383, 413 or 426 big block you will be better off staying with a 727, rather than a later 518 ('90-'95) with the locking convertor. The 518 was only offered with the 318 and 360 small blocks in later years and has a 10" convertor vs the 11" convertor used on the big block motors. Yes it is possible to by an adapter to fit the 518 to a big block engine. You will then need to fabricate a rear transmission mount, speedo cable and drive line and convert to a floor shift. Once you have done all that, you will need to install an electric control to lock the convertor and engage the overdrive unit. All of this is possible. If you have a 318 small block in your car, the transmission won't need an adapter, but will need all of the other things you would need for the big block setup.
All in all, if you are asking for advice, I do not think much of a 518 OD transmission behind any big block. You could use the later '71 727 transmission with the part throttle kick down and you will get better performance at low throttle conditions. You will need to convert probably to a '66 steering column with the hard linkage or go to a floor shift for the transmission. The later kick down linkage for the transmission was designed in most cases to couple to the BBD two barrel carb or the AVS, Holly or thermoquad 4BB carbs. You may wind up having to change carbs or make the necessary kick down linkage parts to adapt for the part throttle conversion.

Dave
 
Last edited:
65 cable shift, small spline input shaft.
66 lever shift, small spline input shaft
67-77 shift lever, large 24 spline input
78 lock up input shaft has a funny end and hollow inside.
Rebuild whatever fits your car if you going to need a stall converter in the future because of upgrades you may want to convert your trans to 24 spline input now. If you are leaving it mostly stock a rebuild is all you need.
If you want part throttle kickdown you will need a 72 up valve body. Or convert a older one but I do not think you can convert yours.
 
65 cable shift, small spline input shaft.
66 lever shift, small spline input shaft
67-77 shift lever, large 24 spline input
78 lock up input shaft has a funny end and hollow inside.
Rebuild whatever fits your car if you going to need a stall converter in the future because of upgrades you may want to convert your trans to 24 spline input now. If you are leaving it mostly stock a rebuild is all you need.
If you want part throttle kickdown you will need a 72 up valve body. Or convert a older one but I do not think you can convert yours.

For 1978, the locking converter was found mostly on the A-904 transmission used on the small block engines and six cylinder engines, was not available on the 727 used with the 440. The 440 was gone for automotive use after '78 anyway. The locking converter was also unavailable for trailer towing packages and for all with 6 cylinder engines with California emissions. Lock up converters were standard on most 727 transmissions from '79 onward (except the HD Variants).

Dave
 
Last edited:
Thanks everybody. I just was looking for info about the subject. I didn't know if there was really any benefit to switching my 65 to a newer style ( or if it was a reasonable thing to do). I'm keeping the 383 stock in the car, so I'm not concerned about it handling power. I just don't have any of the original kick-down linkage that would be for the car and would have to find aftermarket stuff to make it work. I'll also be running a Holly Sniper TBI unit in it so don't really know how that is gonna work out with the cable shift transmission.
 
the throttle kick down is almost the same between early and later 727's . the biggest improvement you could do is the long bushing and large input shaft . just need a donner trans 71 up la or b or rb case . you just need the large input and front pump stuff . in your trans which has a front and rear pump . thats the best , just add the larger input longer bushing front pump and it will be better than the best .
 
FORGET about the lockup converter! According to Chrysler, it's only worth about 3% gain in fuel economy. The other side of things is that the splines in the torque converter need to be correctly heat treated or they'll fail! Takes a different front pump, too.

Chrysler did their research on lockup converters on drag race cars, from what I've read, but they never put it in an HD application, even real police or trailer tow package cars. PURELY a fuel economy EPA mpg thing.

When the splines suddenly fail, you coast to the side of the road and call somebody. That's happened to me TWICE on my '80 Newport. The first time, I was close enough to the house that I coasted to the curb, parked it, and got another one of my cars to drive back to work.

The second time, I was three blocks from the house, so I walked home, called the local trans shop, called a wrecker, got another car and went back to work. Best just to NOT get that done as the added gain in fuel economy is not worth being stranded.

Part throttle, that happened in '71 and is a valve body issue. Easy to add.

Rebuild what you have. According to a friend who was well-versed in '65 TorqueFlites, one of the things they did in '66 was to use wavy steel plates in the clutch packs. This softened the shift a little, to be more "GM-like" as they also softened the spring rates slightly for the same reason. IF yo9u know how yours now shifts, you'll notice the slight softness or "less crisp" shirts. Using gthe '66 and later TFs as a reference point, it feels like a more positive shift, although most TFs have positive shifts already. '65s, just a hair moreso.

As for the OD automatic, unless you have a 3.73 rear axle ratio, the OD won't have enough road speed to engage and not lug the motor, Now, if you put fuel injection on it, then you're not relying upon air flow through the carb to meter fuel.

It might seen better to do the OD or lockup converter, but I feel you'd be better off just doing a quality rebuild on what you have, your '65 TF, maybe some better frictions and a better-quality band, but not much else away from factory specs. EVERY trans builder seems to have their own "tricks of the trade" that "make things better". Some work, some don't, so the best thing is a quality OEM rebuild, maybe using a B&M "master" shift kit kit as a possible upgrade. There ARE less expensive kits, but after a friend used one on his '79 Corvette, it acted just like a more HD factory trans with more positive shifts. Kind of like a good TF might have, but this was a TMM350. The added money was worth it, compared to the $10.00 shift kits back then.

CBODY67
 
For 1978, the locking converter was found mostly on the A-904 transmission used on the small block engines and six cylinder engines, was not available on the 727 used with the 440. The 440 was gone for automotive use after '78 anyway. The locking converter was also unavailable for trailer towing packages and for all with 6 cylinder engines with California emissions. Lock up converters were standard on most 727 transmissions from '79 onward (except the HD Variants).

Dave
Bob has had one in his Newport 400-2
 
FORGET about the lockup converter! According to Chrysler, it's only worth about 3% gain in fuel economy. The other side of things is that the splines in the torque converter need to be correctly heat treated or they'll fail! Takes a different front pump, too.

Chrysler did their research on lockup converters on drag race cars, from what I've read, but they never put it in an HD application, even real police or trailer tow package cars. PURELY a fuel economy EPA mpg thing.

When the splines suddenly fail, you coast to the side of the road and call somebody. That's happened to me TWICE on my '80 Newport. The first time, I was close enough to the house that I coasted to the curb, parked it, and got another one of my cars to drive back to work.

The second time, I was three blocks from the house, so I walked home, called the local trans shop, called a wrecker, got another car and went back to work. Best just to NOT get that done as the added gain in fuel economy is not worth being stranded.

Part throttle, that happened in '71 and is a valve body issue. Easy to add.

Rebuild what you have. According to a friend who was well-versed in '65 TorqueFlites, one of the things they did in '66 was to use wavy steel plates in the clutch packs. This softened the shift a little, to be more "GM-like" as they also softened the spring rates slightly for the same reason. IF yo9u know how yours now shifts, you'll notice the slight softness or "less crisp" shirts. Using gthe '66 and later TFs as a reference point, it feels like a more positive shift, although most TFs have positive shifts already. '65s, just a hair moreso.

As for the OD automatic, unless you have a 3.73 rear axle ratio, the OD won't have enough road speed to engage and not lug the motor, Now, if you put fuel injection on it, then you're not relying upon air flow through the carb to meter fuel.

It might seen better to do the OD or lockup converter, but I feel you'd be better off just doing a quality rebuild on what you have, your '65 TF, maybe some better frictions and a better-quality band, but not much else away from factory specs. EVERY trans builder seems to have their own "tricks of the trade" that "make things better". Some work, some don't, so the best thing is a quality OEM rebuild, maybe using a B&M "master" shift kit kit as a possible upgrade. There ARE less expensive kits, but after a friend used one on his '79 Corvette, it acted just like a more HD factory trans with more positive shifts. Kind of like a good TF might have, but this was a TMM350. The added money was worth it, compared to the $10.00 shift kits back then.

CBODY67
I agree totally. Most of the locking converter packages that Mopar used won't take the torque of even a 383, and well, I worked warranty repair on both the locking 727, 904 and the 518 and I would not put them in in anything I own, especially a big block. I was trying to hint that fact in my earlier post without pissing off those who swear by those transmissions. If your 383 is stock, rebuild the transmission and it will be good for another 100k if you take care of it. If you would like crisper shifts, invest in a good after-market valve body or kit as part of the rebuild.

Dave

Dave
 
Last edited:
Bob has had one in his Newport 400-2
Far as I know that was a available on the 400 cars, just not the 440 and HD applications. Note I said 440 727. The 400 2BBL probably would not smoke the locker. Was this 400-2 a trailer towing package?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Id forget the lockup converter. Its a 383, so your goal is better gas mileage?? That's why id say forget it for a hobby car. Id gladly trade you for a newer (early to mid 70's) non-lockup complete trans including all kickdown linkage and converter for your highly desirable 65 only slip yoke pushbutton trans..... I have multiple setups laying around, but what would YOU gain from the swap??? I've heard more than a few folks say the pushbutton setup can be a force to be reckoned with if you put the money into it that you would any other 727.....
 
1965 was a column shift, not push-button car. I believe the '65 was shifted by a cable, rather than hard linkage.

CBODY67
 
1965 was a column shift, not push-button car. I believe the '65 was shifted by a cable, rather than hard linkage.

CBODY67
That's exactly right. 66 didn't have any rear pump either. Not sure if the 65 did, but think that was dropped after '64.
 
I don' think that shifter will work for the cable operated 1965 transmission.

Hurst makes #3160014 shifter that would appear to work with a cable shift transmission. Shown as acceptable for '65 Belvedere on fitment.

Dave
 
Back
Top