McGaughys Chevy Bel Air 1955 1956 1957 Shift Linkage 700R...

[markm]

Bought one to replace my old CCI linkage for my TH350, shift lever will not even fit over stud on side of trans.

[Rick_L]

Nothing from McGaughy ever fits or works out of the box. Didn't even know they were still screwing up our world.

[markm]

I have never bought any of their crap before, I guess I should have asked, really would like to find a decent linlage setup for a column shift.

[Maddog]

I have bought 2 or 3 things made by them and every one was pitiful at best. Buy Lokar

[markm]

I can tell by the pictures Loker will not work, When my Dad and I subframed his 46 Chevy PU, we installed a early 70s Van tilt column and 72 Chevy truck linkage and that mismashed crap worked pretty damn good.

[markm]

Has anyone ever done a column shift 700R4 and been happy with how linkage worked. All OEM linkages appear to pivot on frame and none of aftermarket do this.

[Maddog]

I used Lokar in a 57 that had 700R4 and a Flaming River column, worked very well.

[markm]

I used Lokar in a 57 that had 700R4 and a Flaming River column, worked very well.

The Lokar kits I have seen are straight rods and my car still has mid mount moter mounts and linkage is bent. I am not a great believer in side mount SBCs in these cars.

[Maddog]

This 57 also had the bell housing mounts and I did have to grind/cut a slight relief in the bracket for the trans rod to clear, no big deal.

[JT56]

I have a column shift Lokar for the 4LE80 I have. I have the McGaughy upper and lower spindles on mine and so far its been good.

[markm]

I have a column shift Lokar for the 4LE80 I have. I have the McGaughy upper and lower spindles on mine and so far its been good.

Whar lokar part number are you guvs using??

[JT56]

Whar lokar part number are you guvs using??

Lokar-ACA-1800

-Lokar-TD-34L80FM Dipstick

[Maddog]

ACA-1800, It does rub the mid mount but I just ground the bracket until it had clearance

[JT56]

ACA-1800, It does rub the mid mount but I just ground the bracket until it had clearance

There is a lip under there and just notched mine our 1/2" wide. Just HotRodding!

[markm]

Redrillwd the arm on the trans today works a little better. I have a lot of deflection in the rod, thinking about building one out of 1/2 rod and turn the ends down to 3/8 inch.

[Maddog]

Are you still using that POS McGaughy rod? Throw it in the trash can where it belongs.

[chevynut]

I am not a great believer in side mount SBCs in these cars.

Seems like GM had that position for a (very) few years, until they changed their engine mounts for the better. Bellhousing mounts are inferior in many ways. First is exhaust clearance with full-length headers, or just about any large exhaust system. Second is the mounts you can get are junk and often come apart. Third is the front mounts don't work with some accessory drive systems or even larger dampers. Fourth is they leave the transmission hanging out in the rear, which can lead to more problems. If you add a crossmember, it's redundant and can cause its own problems. And finally, you can't adjust the engine angle or height with the bellhousing mounts.

I suppose on a stock-type build none of these are that big of a deal. But for anyone modifying a car they are. Side mounts are far superior to the original 4-point mounts in many ways.

[markm]

Are you still using that POS McGaughy rod? Throw it in the trash can where it belongs.

No back to my early 90s CCI part bought for a TH350. its much better.

["USA1"]

Seems like GM had that position for a (very) few years, until they changed their engine mounts for the better. Bellhousing mounts are inferior in many ways. First is exhaust clearance with full-length headers, or just about any large exhaust system. Second is the mounts you can get are junk and often come apart. Third is the front mounts don't work with some accessory drive systems or even larger dampers. Fourth is they leave the transmission hanging out in the rear, which can lead to more problems. If you add a crossmember, it's redundant and can cause its own problems. And finally, you can't adjust the engine angle or height with the bellhousing mounts.

I suppose on a stock-type build none of these are that big of a deal. But for anyone modifying a car they are. Side mounts are far superior to the original 4-point mounts in many ways.

If you want to see overkill a buddy of mine has a 57 in his shop with stock front mounts, side mounts, bell mounts and a crossmenber in the rear under trans.

[JT56]

If you want to see overkill a buddy of mine has a 57 in his shop with stock front mounts, side mounts, bell mounts and a crossmenber in the rear under trans.

He must not have full length headers, unless they hang really low and not many accessory drives? How much power is he running?

["USA1"]

He must not have full length headers, unless they hang really low and not many accessory drives? How much power is he running?

Its in the shop for a CPP 500 ps conversion. Its also an Ebay purchase.

[markm]

I run front mounts with a special drivers side ps mount built in,and side bellhousing adptors and a 74 Camaro crossmenber with a 1969 .060 over 300 hp 350 ad a 1991 model 700R4. Most of the side mounts I have seen use crappy failure prone late 60s Chevy mounts. This setup appears to be fairly bulletproof as I drive things hard at times.