1968 Muncie M22 ??

[Steve P.]

I have a 1968 427/435 that is suppose to have a M-22 trans.It is a numbers matching car. The ID TAG# on the trans is 3915090. does this help in its identification.
I am brand new, so thanks in advance, Steve

[Steve P.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

With more extensive searching on this site, I was able to answer my own question, a M-21 trans.

[Jim T.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Steve there were 80 1968 Corvettes that had the M44 heavy duty close ratio. There were 80 1968 Corvettes with the L88 option.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

With more extensive searching on this site, I was able to answer my own question, a M-21 trans.

Steve------


One thing to keep in mind: the number of cars that are "supposed to have" an M-22 transmission is FAR greater than the number of cars which originally had them.

[Steve P.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

As I had anticipated...... By any chance could you tell me where the paint code plate would be located........Thanks again

[Joe L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

As I had anticipated...... By any chance could you tell me where the paint code plate would be located........Thanks again

Steve------

It's located in the driver side forward door jamb area (on the body, not the door).

[Jim T.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Steve there were 80 1968 Corvettes that had the M44 heavy duty close ratio. There were 80 1968 Corvettes with the L88 option.

M22 not M44

[Steve P.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Thanks again to everyone. What a great site, organization, and resource. Steve Pugsley

[Douglas L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Bring this one back from the dead. My 68 L36 car has this same tag(3915090). Looking through the AIM this tag indicates a M21 originally installed behind a L79. Looking through the archives this is the 3rd instance that I found where a numbers matching 427 car has had this tag. My trans stamp looks good, partial VIN matches the the engine partial VIN(numbers and dimensions) and both match the cars VIN. Should I be concerned?

[Joe L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Bring this one back from the dead. My 68 L36 car has this same tag(3915090). Looking through the AIM this tag indicates a M21 originally installed behind a L79. Looking through the archives this is the 3rd instance that I found where a numbers matching 427 car has had this tag. My trans stamp looks good, partial VIN matches the the engine partial VIN(numbers and dimensions) and both match the cars VIN. Should I be concerned?

Douglas-------


No concern. The M-21 installed in a 1968 L-79 would have been the same as an M-21 installed in an L-36. The AIM indication that the one with your part number was installed in an L-79 just indicates ONE of the applications for which it was used. However, for it to have been used in your car would also mean that your car had the same rear end ratio as the ratio used with the L-79 and this transmission.

[Jim T.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

My original owner 1968 327/350 L79 has a M21 4-speed and has the 3:70 ratio rear.

[Douglas L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

No concern. The M-21 installed in a 1968 L-79 would have been the same as an M-21 installed in an L-36. The AIM indication that the one with your part number was installed in an L-79 just indicates ONE of the applications for which it was used. However, for it to have been used in your car would also mean that your car had the same rear end ratio as the ratio used with the L-79 and this transmission.

Makes sense as my car does seem to have a 3.70 rear gear.(std. ratio for a 68 L79 with a M21 and optional ratio for a 68 L36), I guess what threw me off was that the AIM shows a specific part(#3915091) for a M21 used with L36. So youre saying a particular trans part# was more related to rear gear ratio than engine size?

[Joe L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Makes sense as my car does seem to have a 3.70 rear gear.(std. ratio for a 68 L79 with a M21 and optional ratio for a 68 L36), I guess what threw me off was that the AIM shows a specific part(#3915091) for a M21 used with L36. So youre saying a particular trans part# was more related to rear gear ratio than engine size?

Douglas-------


Yes, the transmission was related ONLY to variant (i.e. M-20, M-21, or M-22) and rear axle ratio. It had nothing to do with engine size or horsepower. The rear axle ratio figured into it only by the installed speedometer drive/driven gears.

[Douglas L.]

Re: 1968 Muncie M22 ??

Joe,

Thanks for the info, its all starting to make sense. Strange how seeing a transmission part # tag that concerned me on my car has sent me down the road of the details of transmission supply from Muncie to St. Louis. Between this and the other thread started by Wayne I'v been thinking about it all day.