Output shaft seal confusion

[ab777]

I am having the seals and gaskets replaced on the transmission for my ‘65 Imperial. I bought two seal/gasket kits but none of the output shaft seals match the one that the mechanic pulled of the car.

I know the car has the 727 torqueflite but does anyone know the exact transmission number or code for this year? I tried looking all over the transmission but could not tell. Or if anyone knows the proper output shaft seal that would be helpful too.

 

[CBODY67]

Will the seals in the kits actually fit the tailshaft housing? In a "will work" orientation rather than "exact match" orientation.

CBODY67

 

[Big_John]

I am having the seals and gaskets replaced on the transmission for my ‘65 Imperial. I bought two seal/gasket kits but none of the output shaft seals match the one that the mechanic pulled of the car.

I know the car has the 727 torqueflite but does anyone know the exact transmission number or code for this year? I tried looking all over the transmission but could not tell. Or if anyone knows the proper output shaft seal that would be helpful too.

Let me guess... You have one that looks like this and one that looks like that.

Either one will work. I prefer the one with the boot because it covers the front yoke a bit better. They are harder to find though and the pictures aren't always of the part that actually ships.

 

[ab777]

Let me guess... You have one that looks like this and one that looks like that.

Either one will work. I prefer the one with the boot because it covers the front yoke a bit better. They are harder to find though and the pictures aren't always of the part that actually ships.

View attachment 724333
View attachment 724334

This the one that was pulled off the car. The second picture you added is the same as the ones that came in the two kits I bought. I don’t know if the one that I put the picture of below is the same though.

 

[ab777]

Will the seals in the kits actually fit the tailshaft housing? In a "will work" orientation rather than "exact match" orientation.

CBODY67

To be honest I was a bit skeptical when the mechanic called me about the whole thing so I decided to go there myself. They are definitely not an exact match, but according to what he showed me he said that the seal would require excessive force to press it in, because according to him it will not slide smoothly and perfectly into the housing. Yes, this is my first classic Mopar, but I’ve resealed a transmission before on a Cadillac but didn’t encounter this issue. So I just find the whole situation confusing.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

The seal does not just slide in, it is a press fit much like axle seals.
Replacements may not have the cone but still seal.


Alan

 

[ab777]

The seal does not just slide in, it is a press fit much like axle seals.
Replacements may not have the cone but still seal.


Alan

That’s what my thoughts were, because generally you don’t want them to slide in because they’ll leak.

 

[CBODY67]

Leaking of the rear seal is NOT just a function of the seal, but also the bushing the yoke slides in at the rear of the tail shaft housing, just in front of the seal. Bushing and yoke end wear, seal leakage is not far behind.

Is there a Chrysler-type part number on the removed seal? Just curious.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[ab777]

Leaking of the rear seal is NOT just a function of the seal, but also the bushing the yoke slides in at the rear of the tail shaft housing, just in front of the seal. Bushing and yoke end wear, seal leakage is not far behind.

Is there a Chrysler-type part number on the removed seal? Just curious.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

The number on it is P1 22978. Barely anything shows up related to it. I do not believe it is a Chrysler part.

 

[Big_John]

This the one that was pulled off the car. The second picture you added is the same as the ones that came in the two kits I bought. I don’t know if the one that I put the picture of below is the same though.

View attachment 724340

View attachment 724341

I think that might be the rubber part of the seal without the outer shell, but I could be wrong.

Are you sure that's the trans seal and not a seal from the 2-piece driveshaft?? I don't know what that looks like, so that's just a guess.

It hit me this morning when I opened this thread that you have the double cardan u-joints and that uses the seal without the boot.

Anyway... I looked it up and from what I see the proper seal is Chrysler part #2205080 and looks lie this:

To be honest I was a bit skeptical when the mechanic called me about the whole thing so I decided to go there myself. They are definitely not an exact match, but according to what he showed me he said that the seal would require excessive force to press it in, because according to him it will not slide smoothly and perfectly into the housing. Yes, this is my first classic Mopar, but I’ve resealed a transmission before on a Cadillac but didn’t encounter this issue. So I just find the whole situation confusing.

It's definitely a press fit into the trans. I put a smear of permatex on the shell and knock it into the trans using a hammer and something like a big socket.

I'd be sure that the seal from the old seal isn't still in the trans and consider getting a new mechanic.

 

[MONC440]

Most transmission rebuild kits come with both seals. Both seals will work. I use the flat seal for non slip yolk and the seal with the extra rubber shield on for slip yolks. The extra rubber boot or shield is to pre clean the slip yolk as it slides into the seal it helps protect the seal from debris as the yolk moves in and out.

 

[Lefty71]

I have seen the tailstock crack from a tight seal install. Get the right Chrysler seal and proceed carefully or find someone you truly trust to do the job... Actually it sounds like your mechanic is on the right track....but i would think he could have handled this without you ending up here for clarification and research.

 

[CBODY67]

For the mechanic, this might be his first Chrysler 2-piece driveshaft, but probably not his first 2-piece driveshaft. GM used them extensively from about 1960 to the earlier to middle 1970s. From mundane 6-cyl BelAirs to longer wheelbase Buicks and Cadillacs. Plus light-duty pickup trucks until the 1973 C/K redesign.

One difference was just where the actual "slip yoke" was placed. On a normal 1-piece unit, it is on the front for the driveshaft where it slides into the rear of the transmission housing. On a 2-piece unit, it could be at the rear of the center carrier support. In which case the slip yoke had a screw-on metal cap, hiding a specific-molded wool packing around the splines to keep the grease in and the dirt out. In some cases, a molded urethane piece was in that mix, too.

The "double-jointed" center attachments were used to allegedly get smoother driveline operation. Possibly cancel out some driveline harmonics which might be offensive to some luxury brand buyers. Interestingly, when all GM brands started to use the later "perimeter frame", no need for the 2-piece units, for any reason. No complaints about "driveline harmonics", either.

An interesting issue was that the 1990s V-6 Camaros had a 2-piece drive shaft. The front section had what was basically a front wheel drive drive axle's outer section, with the joint being the center joint of the driveshaft unit rather than a u-joint. V-6s only. V-8s had a one-piece shaft.

Just some thoughts and observations,
CBODY67