I am considering building a 67 and puting the new ZZ 572 crate motor under the hood. I am wondering what would be a good match for this motor in the way of a manual transmission? I would like the car for 1/4 miles as well as cruising- so I guess I would also need to know a suggested rear end gear? I would like to know what my options are for the tranny and do the least amount of body modification to make it fit. All info is appreciated. Thanks-Jeff

Thats a lot of torque for a manual trans. So you'll have to be easy on the shifts and launches. Optimally you'd want a Jerico style racing transmission for the 1/4 mile, since it would hold up to that kind of power. But the prices are very high, and I'm uncertain how good they are on the street. I personally would stay away from any Muncie transmission. The M-22 wont cut it. The Super T-10, is a stronger transmission, but still would be fragile with that kind of power. I know there is 1 or 2 people on this board that run HEMI 4-speeds, and do really well with them. So maybe they could chip in some advice/opinion.

Another option is, I think Liberty will build up old tranmissions with stronger gears and such. I'm not sure on how much it would cost, or how durable they are.

You said you also want the car for cruising, so that brings me to something like the Tremec TKO-II 5 speed, or a T56 6-speed. I wouldnt go with a Richmond 5 speed, or 5+1, because a ZZ572 doesnt need 5 gears down the 1/4, and the OD of a TKO-II, or 2 OD's of the T56 would really be nice during cruises, and keep the fuel usage to a minimum. If u decide to go Tremec, dont bother with the TR-3550, pay the extra and get the TKO or TKO-II. There are a few guys that dumped a 5 or 6 speed trans into their Chevelles, so Im sure they could help with how easy it is to install, and how much cutting you'd have to do.

As for gears, well that depends on tire size, whihc trans you choose, if your running OD or not, what type of rear end, engine powerband, and engine redline. With that much torque, and the I think the engine stays below 6200, something like a 3.55 gear would be good. IMO, its a great gear for a torquey big block at the strip, and a cruiser.

An A833 MOPAR, a Ford Top-Loader and an Italian gear set Super Case Muncie with the steel mid-plate may hold up to your motor if you don't get stupid with tires and clutch dumping, imho..

I want to know this info. too from guy's with actual experience b/c my 496, (that should be around 550t), will probably eat my M-20 if I get stupid... And I am a stick kinda guy AND DON'T want to run a TH400 automatic.

pdq67

PS., I have an A833 that is out of my long gone brother's '70-1/2 Challenger, 340 TA Six-Pak and am kinda holding onto it until I see how my Muncie actually holds up.. I figure a Lakewood b/h should install it fine if I have to use it.

Jeff, Mike told me that their M22 has been used in app's up to 700hp w/o problems. I don't have details on these car regarding setup and how well they hooked, but I figured I'd pass it on. Here's the link to his site and details on the new M22's
http://www.4speeds.com/newm22.html
You probably don't need the 5 speed with that much torque down low, but the (yet to be shipped) TKO-600 is rated to handle 600 ft lb of torque. I think D&D is actually selling the TKO's a little cheaper than the M22's at Mike's site (I don't have that link handy). The downside of the Tremec is cutting & modifying the trans tunnel to make it fit. Kirk

Jeff,
In the next issue of Chevy Hiperformance they get they're hands on a 572 and are supposed to do a "dyno flog " story . Check it out Im sure they'll offer up some combos for the street. In a previous issue they seemed to not like the cam grind saying it might be to big , takes the power band to high for the street. I'm curious to see what happens. Good Luck , Mitch.

Mitch, I have that mag sitting in my "library" right now. They put a much smaller cam in the 572 (a little 211/230 @ .050 .510/.540 compared to the original 254/264 .632/.632) It went from 649 ft lb @ 4800 & 648 hp @ 5700 to 663 ft lb @ 3700 and 549 hp @ 5000 - these #'s are directly from the magazine. I should think in the original configuration the torque from this motor should be huge, and wouldn't the DCR increase with the smaller cam, thereby necessitating higher octane? They say they used 91 octane for the test, so maybe it's not an issue, but look at the loss in hp vs. the marginal gain in tq. This combo seems like something that would be harder to hook, but have less top end. They seem to think that this is an improvement :confused: I want to know what they're smokin' over there, because it must be better than what I have here ;) Kirk

Kirk,
Were is my issue? I've been waiting for it , must have gotten lost.
"but look at the loss in hp vs. the marginal gain in tq" Yeah but the peak torque dropped over 1000 rpm , 663 ft lb @ 3700 rpm , holy s#!t , I'd say they'll have trouble hookin'. They mentioned in a previous pub. that they would like to try the ZZ502 cam , is that the one they used ? Any one who has followed Chevy Hi for a while knows they are all about big torque #'s , and I'm sure they got a big ol' smile on theyre face w/ this one.

It was the one from the 454 HO. I would have liked to see what the ZZ502 cam would have done, and a comparison with a bigger cam (and maybe some head work). I know how important it is to have lots of torque in a heavy car, but REALLY!
Kirk

I feel the same way as most of you on this board in that if your goal is great big smokey, cop calling, burnouts are your thing then follow their examble and lower your rpm but its going to be a bear to hook up and will be done at the 900 ft. mark. I think i would like mine the way G.M. made it. C.H.P. missed the mark this time and i doubt the undercammed one won't beat the regular one in a drag race. You are sure going to waste some rubber if you make it their way.

I should proofread my posts more thoroughly. The last of the second sentence should read, " and i doubt that the undercammed one could beat the regular one in a drag race". Additionally i have seen a lot of 502/502 crate motor cars that aren't particularly fast. So much for big torque that dies at 5500 RPM or less.

Something to remeber with the 572 is they are based on Tall deck blocks, or so I think they are. That means customs headers and no power brakes.

Later
Steve

I disagree Steve. The tall deck is what, 0.400 taller? These motors have GMPP alum heads with the exh ports in the stock location (I think only the symmetrical port version of the bow tie heads had raised ports). Aftermarket heads like AFR's have the ports raised 0.400, and Brodix, Canfield and others have ports that are raised 0.600. So, the 572 will have the same port location (or lower) than a short deck with these heads. There are plenty of people on this site using these heads with P/B and off the shelf headers. This is not to say that they haven't had some problems with clearance - I'm sure some have dimpled headers and some are using smaller diameter boosters, but I don't think the 572 poses any more problems than any other motor. My brother got one of the first 572's GM released, and he's putting it in his '72. I'll let y'all know how it goes, Kirk

Alright not a problem. I have never done it so I can't say I know for sure. Just repeating what I have read many times. Hopefully it is an oldwives tale and you'll have no problems. smile.gif

Later
Steve

Originally posted by kboorman:
I disagree Steve. The tall deck is what, 0.400 taller? These motors have GMPP alum heads with the exh ports in the stock location (I think only the symmetrical port version of the bow tie heads had raised ports). Aftermarket heads like AFR's have the ports raised 0.400, and Brodix, Canfield and others have ports that are raised 0.600. So, the 572 will have the same port location (or lower) than a short deck with these heads. There are plenty of people on this site using these heads with P/B and off the shelf headers. This is not to say that they haven't had some problems with clearance - I'm sure some have dimpled headers and some are using smaller diameter boosters, but I don't think the 572 poses any more problems than any other motor. My brother got one of the first 572's GM released, and he's putting it in his '72. I'll let y'all know how it goes, Kirk Speaking from experience here, you will need more than a "dimple" to install 2" primary Hooker Super Comps in a 66 with the exhaust ports raised .600" You will need a BFH or a baseball bat.

Sorry Steve, that last reply may not have come across the way I intended it.
I was thinking of you when I posted that last reply Ken, and I thought that I might use stronger word than "dimple," but hopefully y'all know what I mean. I hate reading my own posts - any time I offer anything up, it sounds like I'm a know-it-all. I try to avoid that, because I certainly don't know it all. BTW, isn't the BFH a F*rd tool? :D Kirk

Jeff,
Are you gettin' the feeling that a 572 might be too much work to install and too much motor for the street? I am . I personally like the CHP motor , but would like to see the ZZ502 cam or something slightly bigger in the motor. On the STREET , I think the CHP motor would take the factory 572 , but neither motor , IMO , could show it's true potential on the street. That would be a great motor to move my 4000lb + '73 Chevelle. Maybe it would be better to build your own rat motor and install a set of them kick ass orange valve covers.
Mitch.

Think Jerico on the trans. Custom headers are a must do. Power brakes with a late model smaller booster should work, or relocate the booster up and out a little, that is what we've been doing, pretty easy really.

FYI 572/720 went 7.94 at 168 mph in a 1900 lbs dragster, right out of the box with no mods and no tuning.

Just a note .. the Tall Deck blocks dont raise the exhaust ports up .400", they raise them .200" and move them outward .200" compared to the same head on a 9.800" block. Do the 2" Hooker SC's run all 4 tubes inside the frame ? That could be the difference in what I have, Hooker 2.125" SC's which have one tube on each side run outside the frame. The drivers side on mine fit perfect, no issues at all. ( no pwr brakes either )Pass. side I notched the frame cause I'll be damned if I'm going to dent a set of headers ( kinda defeats the purpose ) Also the heads I have, have the exhaust ports raised .600" so I assume even less of a notch would be needed for a stnd. type set of heads.

My 540 puts down 700 ft lbs at 3800 and 640hp at 5600 with the 6 speed its fun to drive :D ...anyway im using regular hooker 2" long tubes they had to be clearanced because they were near the brake line block on the frame otherwise fitment isnt too bad. The power brake booster needs to be swapped out for a smaller dual unit like I did or you could use lower valve covers or notch the valve covers. My tall edelbrock covers were massive and originally we couldnt get the motor in and were scratching our heads going wtf? I got a picture of my dad standing on top jumping on it trying to get it in...lol...We figured it out took off the cover notched it with a grinder and it fit fine. But we got the smaller dual cylinder booster anyway. The cam in my power plant is a grind pat musi picked from lunati so harold is the guy to go to... its a small solid roller .602 lift around 240@50 runs nice can idle down to 800-900 sounds like a nasty raceboat/top fuel car. The rear came with 4.10's that I never felt like changing and Im using 28" tires at the moment. In 4th (1-1) Im turning round 4k @80 in 6th(.5-1) 2k@80 so that double over is great much nicer on gas mileage. btw my power number are with out of the box edelbrock rpm airgap and a speeddemon 750 so with a good cam I think the 572 is capable of better numbers than chp got. Maybe more than mine but my comp is higher 10.9-1 running on 92-93.But hell its fun to drive and makes ppl cream their pants when I take em round....

doggy, what heads were you running. ANd were they ported or not?