http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=RMG%2D1304000071&FROM=MG

I am planning to convert my Nova from auto to manual. Currently I am running a 350 with double hump heads, nothing real fancy, TH350 auto and a 2.73 rear gear. I am hoping to retain the 2.73 gear and the stock cross member if at all possible.

The trans in question has a pretty steep 1st gear ratio, I'm thinking that should work with a 2.73 gear right? If coupled with a 2.73 shouldn't I have a pretty good take off gear right?

Also I'm wondering if the trans in the link is a direct replacement for a Muncie 4 speed? Or will I have to make some mods to get it to fit?

Seeing that it's a 32 spline output shaft, do they make a yoke for it that will retain the stock drive shaft? Or will I just need to have a new driveshaft made with the proper yoke to make it all work?

Finally how durable are the Richmond 4 speeds? I plan to mainly use the car on the street but plan to take a trip to the strip to see what she does. I hope it's not a ticking time bomb like a Saginaw is.

Thanks.

The guy that bought my malibu put one in and he was really happy with it. However I think you are looking for the trans to do something it can't. Yes it has a steep first gear, but the gear ratio drops in between will kill an engine with low torque. You will have a steep rpm drop at each gear change. It will not be a good combo for the strip.

The 3.42 gear ratio will handle less torque than a 2.64 or 2.43. I had an iron case ST10 with 2.88 first 9310 gears and stripped 1/2 the teeth off the cluster. When I do put the trans back together I am going with the 2.43 ratio. The Richmond website doesn't give a torque rating for the 3.42. the 2.88 is rated 300 ft lbs.
http://www.richmondgear.com/07pdfs/RG25.pdf

Which Richmond 4 speed should I go with? That won't dissapoint me?

Also I am running a 350 as of right now, and later hopefully a 400. Low torque....no 283's here.;)

For a fairly mild small block that is street driven this Richmond should work nicely.

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=RMG%2D1304000072&N=700+400137+4294856890+4294856336+4294856324+115&autoview=sku

The 3.42 gear ratio will handle less torque than a 2.64 or 2.43.

Thanks was not aware of this.

Also if I may ask what do you calculate in between gear ratios to determine if it's good for the strip or has too much gear drop?

The idea in gear ratios is to keep them as close together as possible to keep the engine in it's powerband the longest. This is why Pro Stock cars went from 4 speeds to 5 speeds because the extra gear let them keep the ratios closer with less of a drop. It's a bit of a compromise. You want it to get out with a low first gear but you may need to lower the gear ratio in the rearend to keep the trans ratios closer.

Ray I see where you're coming from. I think you're basically saying with the low geared trans I'd pull out of the hole mighty hard but come gear change time I'd be slowing down.

My big thing is I didn't want to have to end up throwing some 3.73 in the rear and then trying to drive it on the interstate.

Guess I'll need to play around with the different gear ratios and such. Looks like the 2.43 geared Richmond T-10 has a better torque capacity (375 lbs) than any of the other ones.

As mentioned my car currently has a 350. I plan to eventually go with a 400 later, but for now the 350 will do.

I don't know what gear set was in it, but we had a 2.88 first gear t-10 in a 430 hp 69 camaro and it held together. It went 11.70's with 1.60 60'. However I think what reduced the hit on the trans was a 4.56 rear gear. If you had a 2.73 gear in it that's a harder hit on the trans.