# CLOSE RATIO vs WIDE RATIO



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

As y'all know, Ive been investigating the manual conversion topic, for almost a year now.

During that time, I've spoken in depth with people here, as well as Hanlon Motor Sports, Silver Sport, Modern Drive Line, and American Powertrain. Everyone has a different opinion and an interesting philosophy to support it.

My experience with manual transmissions in American muscle cars is an M20 in my 70 Vette, an M22 in a 65 Impala, and a Saginaw 3 speed in my Ventura. I loved the M20, but I never thought the car put the rubber to the road, as it shouldve... on the other hand, the SS Impala ripped the 12 bolt out of the frame, with a 327.

Anywho... now putting the TKX in the GTO, and the 3.27 Wide Ratio is "the hot" upgrade... but the 2.87 Close ratio has a much better over drive, which is why Im doing this conversion. 

So I did a little investigating and I found that the TH400 in my car has a 1st gear of 2.48. That means that the Tremec Close Ratio will still be a lower ratio than Im accustomed too.

With 3.36 gears, it puts my car's 1st gear ratio at 9.6, and I was told that "9" is the magic number for performance... With the wide ratio (3.27) TKX, I'd be at 11!

As usual, there are 100 opinions about this on the web, I'd like to hear some of your philosophies and experiences with CLOSE vs WIDE ratio transmissions.


----------



## Baaad65 (Aug 29, 2019)

If you're going to cruise it more than race it which I think is your goal then I would do the close ratio, you're still going to notice more off the line than what you have now and if down the road you want more you can easily change the rear gear. I have a 2:98 first with a 3:42 cog so idk what my magic number is but I can't keep 9.5" drag radials under it popping the clutch with lift bars. Just check your gear to gear rpm drops so you don't have a lag in power as you go rowing your boat.


----------



## 67ventwindow (Mar 3, 2020)

In general the close ratios were to keep you in your power band while racing. 

Just the numbers 
muncie 4-spd wide 2.56 4 spd close 2.20 
Toploader wide 4spd 2.78 close top loader 2.32
TKX wide 3.27 and close 2.87 
Magnum 6spd wide 2.97 close 2.66

Definitely not just adding a OD gear. The Close ratio of today are more equal to the wide ratio of the past.

Like Baaad said. check your RPMs and overlay your power numbers from your engine and that should let you know what your combination should feel like. There should be a calculator out there for this. I will start digging.


----------



## Baaad65 (Aug 29, 2019)

Or PJ will splain it all soon 😁


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

I understand it all. I've been rebuilding gear boxes for a few decades, but Im mostly interested in users experiences with the close vs wide ratio's.

According to Motortrend; the optimal performance ratio for 1st gear is 10:1... I've also heard 9:1

Which is simply your axle ratio multiplied by the 1st gear ratio of the trans... In my case; 3.36 (my posi) x 2.87 (Tremec TKX 1st) = 9.64

OBVIOUSLY, getting the TKX with the 3.27 will be like putting 3.73's in my diff... but since I'm already spinning the tires through 1st and 2nd with the TH400, and installing a TKX with 2.87 1st gear will give me even more grunt... why would I go to the 3.27?

If all Im going to do is roast the tires... and sacrifice 80mph, rpm reduction?


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

Baaad65 said:


> Or PJ will splain it all soon 😁


I've been rebuilding my diffs for a long time. Spools in 455 drag cars, 5.11's in Wranglers with 37" tires... but this process is heavily tainted with opinions, so Im trying to sort a few things out.

I remember putting the 5.11's in my neices Wrangler a few years back. I fought tooth and nail with her dad, who insisted that it would kill her mileage. He had retired as a mechanic for Chrysler and the gov.t, so he knew his stuff... but he was making generalizations for something.

37" tires on custom wheels, weigh a ton, and between that rotating mass and the extra height, it took 5.11 gears just to bring it back to stock performance. We added 6mpg with it.

Same thing with my 91 RS Camaro. I replced the 2.92 with 3.73 and in contrast to what everyone said, I got better mileage, because I never left the city.

BOP diffs werent the best, tires are now sticky, performance is up, so if a 2.87 close ratio is going to give me even more low end than I have now, why would I go to the 3.27 wide ratio?

Here's a great article, but im still interested in personal experiences 









Gear Ratio Calculating - Tech Article - Chevy High Performance Magazine


Read Chevy High Performance magazine's technical article on calculating gear ratios.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

In the '60s and '70s, most transmissions offered three or four gears with a 1:1 high gear. Using a TH400 as an example, First gear is 2.48:1, Second gear is 1.48:1, and Third gear is 1:1. Multiplying the 2.48 First gear by the 4.10 rear axle results in a final drive ratio of 10.16:1 (2.48 x 4.10 = 10.16). For most street performance applications, a 10:1 final First gear ratio is usually considered optimal. The disadvantage of operating a 4.10:1 axle ratio on the street with a 1:1 high gear is excessive freeway engine speed.


----------



## 67ventwindow (Mar 3, 2020)

armyadarkness said:


> 9.64
> 
> OBVIOUSLY, getting the TKX with the 3.27 will be like putting 3.73's in my diff... but since I'm already spinning the tires through 1st and 2nd with the TH400, and installing a TKX with 2.87 1st gear will give me even more grunt... why would I go to the 3.27?


So you can have the same trany as a 2005 mustang GT. I always look at what comes off the line with trans to get an Idea. And its magic number was a 12.


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

Hmmm... very interesting. Thanks for the data! I was always curious why those 302 cars killed the 350 Camaro's and Birds... It also explains why none of them could survive a wet road.


----------



## Jared (Apr 19, 2013)

Mine had a close ratio Saginaw in it when I got it. I replaced it with a wide ratio Muncie because the cost of the close ratio Muncie is just stupid in my opinion. This was with the old tired 400 that was in it. My descriptions are all seat of the pants observations from several years ago. The car seemed to be more responsive in the mid gears with the Saginaw compared to the Muncie but the Muncie was more fun to drive if that makes any sense. Since I wasn't tracking it, there was really no benefit to the close ratio box for me. Since you're upping it to a five speed, you may want to look around on a Chevelle forum and see if this topic has come up. You're more likely to find someone who has done it both ways with a similar engine set up to you there than here.

Funny that you recall the 302 Mustangs whipping the LT1 Camaros and Birds. New Jersey must be different than here. The Mustang owners did all the bragging, the GM boys did all the winning, at least when the cars were close to stock.


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

Being in the seaside, resort town, with the strip that Springsteen wrote all those songs about, it was ALL we did. Plus, it was the break-dancing/ guido/ 80's, so it was all Irocs, Grand Nationals, Mustang GT's, and parachute pants.... The Mustangs definitely "kept up", revv'd up quick but they also fell flat on their faces, much quicker. 

Anyway... I had a 66 Lemans during that age.


----------



## 1971LemansWisc (Apr 18, 2021)

Beyond the Palace, hemi-powered drones
Scream down the boulevard ...
Guessing more 440 Six-Packs and 383s than Hemi … could be wrong - last one on the planet to argue with Bruce 😊
Agree, the MotorTrend article is excellent - Math/Numbers are always good to tell us if we are on track 
Only experience is with Wide Ratio ... been good and reliable
Tremec TKX or College Fund for the youngest ... think you know how that went ... hearing a lot of positive about this Trans


----------



## Jared (Apr 19, 2013)

armyadarkness said:


> Being in the seaside, resort town, with the strip that Springsteen wrote all those songs about, it was ALL we did. Plus, it was the break-dancing/ guido/ 80's, so it was all Irocs, Grand Nationals, Mustang GT's, and parachute pants.... The Mustangs definitely "kept up", revv'd up quick but they also fell flat on their faces, much quicker.
> 
> Anyway... I had a 66 Lemans during that age.


Ah, that does it. I forgot you were a little older than me. I started driving in the early 90s where the GM F body cars had the LT1 350 that were drastically under rated and the SN95 Mustang took both a reduction in HP (to 210) and a weight gain of a couple hundred pounds from the fox body style. Not a good move for the Ford team in those years.


----------



## solar68 (Nov 11, 2021)

Hey! I can finally give you some thoughts!

Ive owned both close and wide ration in C6 vettes, the LS liked to be kept on boil and the close ratio was much preferred.

I just started driving my TKX today (with close ratio)- and its still well spaced out and the OD is killer (70 is less than 2k rpm with 3.55’s)

That being said, i wanted the wide ratio for the same reasons you state, but i was told they were out of stock at both American powertrain and silver state- so i went close ratio..

Having put 20 miles on it today the close ration doesn’t feel that close-

I’d probably still do the wide ratio if it were available. I think the Tq of the motor would carry it easy….


----------



## solar68 (Nov 11, 2021)

67ventwindow said:


> So you can have the same trany as a 2005 mustang GT. I always look at what comes off the line with trans to get an Idea. And its magic number was a 12.


The TKX is nothing like the tremec in the mustang, it revs to 7500 3 cone synchros, same space as the 4 speed- its a game changer, read up on it


----------



## 67ventwindow (Mar 3, 2020)

I ready have read up on them. I never was speaking of the construction only the gearing. Only giving examples of common found gearing, not one offs that someone might not have had the experience with.

* TKX
WIDE * 3.27, 1.98, 1.34, 1.00, 0.72
*CLOSE *2.87, 1.89, 1.28, 1.00, 0.68 
2005 GT 
*TREMEC TR 3650*
3.38, 2.0 1.32 1 .68


----------



## PontiacJim (Dec 29, 2012)

Baaad65 said:


> Or PJ will splain it all soon 😁


Here we go - my example using my TKO-600 manual transmission as the example. Your results may vary when using different gears/tire size,engine, etc.. Several ways to look at this. You want to decide on what you are looking for out of the driveline with regards to the engine's HP/TQ output, best power band, RPM range, first gear "take-off" from a dead stop, spread between gears - close ratio/wide ratio, OD gear ratio/car speed/engine RPM. You can't have it all, just like a camshaft, you have to select/match the drivetrain to several parameters.

First, from my basic automotive school book - torque & gears. Torque to the rear axles/tires changes depending on gear ratios (trans x rear end). Let's start with the rear axle ratio. A 3.55 gear ratio means that the smaller pinion gear makes 3.55 revolutions for each 1 revolution of the larger ring gear. This is why you can count the number of times a driveshaft will turn to make the wheel/tire rotate 1 revolution. So rear axle gear ratio's will play into trans selection.

Using my TKO 600 5-speed as my example, my trans ratio's are 1st-2.87, 2nd-1.89, 3rd-1.28, 4th-1.1, 5th-.64. I am using a Ford 9" with a 3.89 gear ratio and 28" tall tires. To figure out my assorted final gear ratio in each gears, multiply trans gear x rear end gear. Then I used that number in an online calculator to determine the MPH range of each gear using the lowest RPM engine speed, 1,000 RPM, and what I feel my highest engine speed will be, 5,600 RPM.

Gear Ratio's RPM/MPH Range - 1,000 & 5,600
2.87 x 3.89 = 11.16 07.46 - 41.80 MPH Range (750 RPM idle = 5.6 MPH) 
1.89 x 3.89 = 7.35 11.33 - 63.47 MPH Range
1.28 x 3.89 = 4.97 16.74 - 93.72 MPH Range
1.00 x 3.89 = 3.89 21.42 - 119.97 MPH Range
0.64 x 3.89 = 2.48 33.47 - 187.45 MPH Range ("What's behind me is not important.")

Pretending I am racing and shifting through the gears, I am going to shift at my max 5,600 RPM. Each shift is made at that maximum RPM/MPH and drops/picks up somewhere in the RPM/MPH range of the next gear, and so on. So this is what it looks like:

Shift out of 1st, 5,600 RPM/41 MPH, which drops/puts me at 41 MPH/3,650 RPM in 2nd gear. I accelerate up to 5,600 RPM/63 MPH and shift and grab 3rd gear which drops/puts me at 63 MPH/ 3,775 RPM. I wind the snot out of 3rd gear and hit 5,600 RPM/93 MPH and slam into 4th gear which drops/puts me at 93 MPH/ 4,350 RPM's. I put that 440 Six Pack in my rear view mirror as I hit the 1/4 mile finish line at 121 MPH/ 5,650 RPM (11.76 seconds).

Looking at my RPM drops between gears and the RPM my 455 is at after each drop; 
1st to 2nd - 1,950 RPM drop - 3,650 RPM to 5,600 RPM
2nd to 3rd - 1,825 RPM drop - 3,775 RPM to 5,600 RPM
3rd to 4th - 1,250 RPM drop - 4,350 RPM to 5,650 RPM

My RPM/Power Band is between 3,650 - 5,600 using the 1st through 4th gear of my TKO 600 for butt-kicking 1/4 mile street racing. NOTE - your cam, and matched engine parts, should be factored into your engine's power/rpm band and your style of driving. If you select a cam that works best at 1,000 RPM - 4,000 RPM's, then gear accordingly. An automatic trans will have different parameters such as torque converter stall/slip in addition to its gear ratio's.

What about that 5th gear OD? How does it stack up for cruising on the highway? 
2,000 RPM's - 67 MPH
2,100 RPM's - 70 MPH
2,200 RPM's - 73 MPH
2,250 RPM's - 75 MPH
5th gear ratio of .64 is for easy-on-the-engine cruising or outrunning the police on top end.

H*ow much affect do gear ratio's have on rear wheel torque*???? Simple. You need to know what the torque numbers are of your engine and at what RPM's - that torque graph you get when you dyno your engine is what is needed. BUT, let's assume my 455CI cranks out 530 Ft Lbs of torque at its maximum - RPM is not important for this example.

Simply take the final gear ratio, trans gear x rear gear, and multiply it by your torque number. Looking at my 1st gear ratio, we get 11.16 x 530 Tq = 5,914 Ft Lbs of Torque being applied to my two rear axles/tires OR 2,957 Ft Lbs of Torque being applied to each side/axle. Hmmmm. I wonder if that non-posi rear axle and the factory 14" x 6 " tire can grab traction if I rev my engine up to 5,600 RPM's and side step my clutch? Any bets on how long that black strip of goodyear tire will be left behind? LOL So if you had a torque curve from an engine dyno session, you could plot a graph showing how much torque is going to the rear axles/tires through each gear and its RPM range.

I included a chart from the book "Hook and Launch" which provides the best 1st gear starting-line ratio for launching your car based on the crank stroke and car weight. This can be used to determine if your starting line ratio is under-geared or over-geared. My 1st gear is waaaay over-geared, but finding that best launch technique will be the answer.


----------



## Baaad65 (Aug 29, 2019)

Great information as usual, looks like I'm over geared too, 2:98 first gear 3:42 rear cog. I bought the rear end a year before I bought the trans and was assuming I would be using a close or wide ratio Muncie, then I found this custom trans built by Jody's transmissions with the 2:98 1st gear...but it's fun just need more traction. When I have 3k burning a hole in my pocket maybe I'll look into the TKX wide ratio 😉


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

solar68 said:


> Hey! I can finally give you some thoughts!
> 
> Ive owned both close and wide ration in C6 vettes, the LS liked to be kept on boil and the close ratio was much preferred.
> 
> ...


Im especially interested in your experience, because I intended to use the wide ratio as well, but like you, am now leaning toward the close ratio.


----------



## 67ventwindow (Mar 3, 2020)

So doing the math the set up I have zero d in on close ratio 2.66 6spd with around a 3.90 rear. will be the equivalent to a Muncie close ratio 2.20 with 4,70 rear out of the hole. I can handle that. With .5 overdrive driving the great expanses out west should be fun..


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

PontiacJim said:


> Here we go - my example using my TKO-600 manual transmission as the example. Your results may vary when using different gears/tire size,engine, etc.. Several ways to look at this. You want to decide on what you are looking for out of the driveline with regards to the engine's HP/TQ output, best power band, RPM range, first gear "take-off" from a dead stop, spread between gears - close ratio/wide ratio, OD gear ratio/car speed/engine RPM. You can't have it all, just like a camshaft, you have to select/match the drivetrain to several parameters.
> 
> First, from my basic automotive school book - torque & gears. Torque to the rear axles/tires changes depending on gear ratios (trans x rear end). Let's start with the rear axle ratio. A 3.55 gear ratio means that the smaller pinion gear makes 3.55 revolutions for each 1 revolution of the larger ring gear. This is why you can count the number of times a driveshaft will turn to make the wheel/tire rotate 1 revolution. So rear axle gear ratio's will play into trans selection.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jim. Im sure quite a few of us were waiting on you. So... nuts and bolts aside, what's your take on it?

Looking at that chart, with a 3.75 stroke and a 3700 lb car, I should be looking to be in the mid to high 10's


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

PontiacJim said:


> My 1st gear is waaaay over-geared, but finding that best launch technique will be the answer.


Using a 455 with 3.55 gears, you can get away with the close ratio and 2.87 first gear.

My 400 with 3.36's, will be more difficult... however, as I mentioned, even with the 2.87 close ratio, I'll still be doing much better than with the TH400


----------



## PontiacJim (Dec 29, 2012)

armyadarkness said:


> Using a 455 with 3.55 gears, you can get away with the close ratio and 2.87 first gear.
> 
> My 400 with 3.36's, will be more difficult... however, as I mentioned, even with the 2.87 close ratio, I'll still be doing much better than with the TH400


If you go back and look at my numbers, the most important thing when selecting the OD is my engine RPM's at highway speeds. You can get various OD ratio's Use one of the online calculators and decide your cruising MPH, then decide what RPM you want your engine to spin, input tire diameter, input your OD ratio, and *solve for rear gear ratio* - this is what I did. The 1st thru 4th gear ratio's were not important to me as I wanted the "highway driving" out of the OD so when I go to a car show that requires driving on the highway to get there, versus local, my engine is not running high RPM's at the 70-80 MPH speeds. I could not see selecting an OD of .82 as to me that is not much of an OD. The .68 was another for the TKO-500. If I am going to use an OD, I want it to be a deep OD that really dropped the cruising RPM's. Where I live, speeds run 70 (legal) to 80 MPH (normal fast lane speeds). So I based my rear gear on that.

I also wanted acceleration, which 3.89 gears will give. Going with big/wide tires is also my choice for the look I am after. Stock size is about 26 inches in diameter. So taller tires changes the rear gear selection. If I had gone with 3.73 or 3.55's, my RPM's at 70 MPH may have been too low and the engine would have been laboring or bucking. Cam selection, as well as cubic inches, has bearing on just how low you want the RPM's to be in OD.

If you look at the best gear ratio for off-the-line acceleration, it would be pretty hard to match the 1st gear ratio with the rear gear ratio and take advantage of the .64 OD. For fun, let's see what that works out to be. My car should weigh in under 3,400 (shooting for 3,200) with all the fiberglass/plastic glass/stripped interior. But using the chart, I will use 3,500 pounds and 4.25" stroke giving me the best 1st gear ratio of 9.25.

The TKO-600 1st gear ratio is 2.87. 9.25 ÷ 2.87 = 3.22. I need a 3.23 rear gear to make my 1st gear optimum. Now If I plug 3.23 in a MPH/RPM calculator using my .64 OD, at 70 MPH, my engine would be turning 1,750 RPM.

In my opinion, I feel 1,750 RPM is a bit on the low side and even though I may have the torque to pull the car along at highway speeds, I think the engine would run poorly based on my cam selection, tunnel ram, and dual quads - maximum 540TQ is around 4,000-4,500 RPM's and at 2,000 RPM's, the engine will only be putting out around 180 HP/471TQ. IF I had an engine that was more in tune with a stock or mildly modified engine with the bigger TQ numbers in the lower RPM's, I might be able to run at this low an RPM.

If I used the .82 OD, this would bring my engine RPM's up to 2,225 RPM's @ 70 MPH - a 475 RPM increase .64 vs .82. Not bad at all, BUT, those 3.89 gears will row through the gears faster and keep the intake air/fuel velocity high and propel my car much faster in the lower 4 gears, especially when the need comes to pull a fast downshift and accelerate past a Porsche 930 Turbo. 1st gear may be a tire smoker, but that is what I also am after. With the 3.23 gearing, I could get 76 MPH out of second gear itself! LOL

The TKX is offered in wide/close ratio. The wide ratio has an even lower first gear - 3.27 and .72 OD. The close ratio comes with the 2.87 1st gear and can be had with either the .81 or .68 OD. If I wanted to run a 3.08, maybe even a 2.93 rear gear, the wide ratio trans with the 3.27 1st gear would work and I could keep that gear ratio often found in automatic cars and not have to change them for 3.23's and up. So that is a plus in upgrading to the TKX from an automatic.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Keep in mind that originally, the M-20 wide ratio 4 speed Muncie had a first gear of 2.56 for '64 and '65, and 2.52 for '66 and up. The close ratio M-21's had a 2.20 first gear. IMO, you don't need a 3.27 or more first gear in your 3.36 rear geared Pontiac. Anything from 2.50 to 3.00 first gear would be about perfect. I have a Borg Warner Super T-10 in my '61 Corvette with a 3.42 first gear and a 3.36 differential gear. With my 383 stroker, first gear is useless. Like a granny gear in an old truck. I often just start the car out in second gear, which in my trans is 2.20 ----the same as an M21's first gear. Pontiacs have so much low end torque the need for stiff low gears isn't really there. My 2.56 rear geared '67 GTO with a TH400 trans burns posi rubber easily, even with the 2.48 low in the automatic. The only way I would put a 3.00 or higher low gear trans in one of these cars is if I had a 2.78-2.93 rear gear. And with a gear like that, an OD trans would not be needed.


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

geeteeohguy said:


> Keep in mind that originally, the M-20 wide ratio 4 speed Muncie had a first gear of 2.56 for '64 and '65, and 2.52 for '66 and up. The close ratio M-21's had a 2.20 first gear. IMO, you don't need a 3.27 or more first gear in your 3.36 rear geared Pontiac. Anything from 2.50 to 3.00 first gear would be about perfect. I have a Borg Warner Super T-10 in my '61 Corvette with a 3.42 first gear and a 3.36 differential gear. With my 383 stroker, first gear is useless. Like a granny gear in an old truck. I often just start the car out in second gear, which in my trans is 2.20 ----the same as an M21's first gear. Pontiacs have so much low end torque the need for stiff low gears isn't really there. My 2.56 rear geared '67 GTO with a TH400 trans burns posi rubber easily, even with the 2.48 low in the automatic. The only way I would put a 3.00 or higher low gear trans in one of these cars is if I had a 2.78-2.93 rear gear. And with a gear like that, an OD trans would not be needed.


I share the same philosophy. As I've consistently mentioned, even the 2.87 close ratio Tremec, would be a lower first gear than the TH400... and with the TH400. the car smokes the posi into 2nd, and chirps 3rd at 80mph.

At the end of the day, I like to play with my car and I like to cruise, too. I've often wished for more grunt, down low, and I'd rather have it and not use it than want it and not have it. Plus, as Jim mentioned, the 3.27 will put my first gear in the 10's, which will take advantage of my cam and get me out of the whole quick... at the expense of my tires


----------



## 67ventwindow (Mar 3, 2020)

armyadarkness said:


> At the end of the day, I like to play with my car and I like to cruise, too. I've often wished for more grunt, down low, and I'd rather have it and not use it than want it and not have it. Plus, as Jim mentioned, the 3.27 will put my first gear in the 10's, which will take advantage of my cam and get me out of the whole quick... at the expense of my tires


 I know the feeling just at the other end of the spectrum. I drive through Iowa and the vast corn fields littered with monstrosities they call wind mills. I find my self reaching for a sixth gear to hit 90 and just cruise. Not something I would do every day but I sure miss that ability. To do that in a 60s Pontiac so much sweeter.


----------



## armyadarkness (Dec 7, 2020)

For me, the pain of this entire process are the logistics... Bell housing alignment, Throw Out Bearing clearance, pedal and slave install, carpet cutting, reverse lights, speedometer connection, console alignment, drive shaft mod.

Once that stuff is all done, if I don't like the trans, I'll swap it out.


----------



## solar68 (Nov 11, 2021)

armyadarkness said:


> For me, the pain of this entire process are the logistics... Bell housing alignment, Throw Out Bearing clearance, pedal and slave install, carpet cutting, reverse lights, speedometer connection, console alignment, drive shaft mod.
> 
> Once that stuff is all done, if I don't like the trans, I'll swap it out.



What i have learned in the time with mine.

i would do the wide ratio if you can get them, the torque is everywhere and more spacing is good
get the Lakewood bellhousing, super easy to align
get a hydro pedal set up
mount the rod to the master cylinder 17/8ths from the pedal pivot for best pedal feel
mine has speedo cable (just need to know tire size and gears)
mine has reverse lights and neutral safety switch
driveshaft is easy once trans is mounted and you can measure..

It’s so worth it, i am loving mine.


----------

