When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Happy winter!
I have had two so called experts, (in their own mind), tell me my later model bell housing is not strong enough for a front mounted engine. I run a later block with this bell housing in my 1960 and never gave it a thought. What say you? Strong enough? Thanks, Scott
Think about it this way...... the very first aluminum bell housings did NOT have reinforcing ribs and were NOT 360* designs. Yet they did just fine in C1 applications with the front engine support.
Your bellhousing is much stronger than those early aluminum bellhousings. It'll do fine.
Oh ya, just as a thought, Chevy put these housings behind L88, ZL1, LS6, 375hp/327, Lt1 engines, etc, etc, etc.
Except for the 56 Vette, which has an open bottom 1960 alum housing, everything else has that style of bell housing. INCLUDING an Olds version behind a built W30 spec 468 Olds 455. NEVER any issues!
I can't speak to the cause of this, so it probably should have no bearing on the question at hand. I spotted it when I was doing some work under my '63 many years ago, when it was still owned by the buddy from whom I subsequently bought the car. For what it's worth...
The engine mounts changed in 63, from front to side mounts, which affects the load on the bellhousing. (later ones have less load).
I expect you'll find that the 62 bellhousing is a bit thicker than the later ones. But that's just a guess. If you have some laying around, put them on a scale.
I can't speak to the cause of this, so it probably should have no bearing on the question at hand. I spotted it when I was doing some work under my '63 many years ago, when it was still owned by the buddy from whom I subsequently bought the car. For what it's worth...
Live well,
SJW
While I have no opinions one way or another about that failure, I'd be very interested in the results of a formal failure analysis.
As has been pointed out, the bellhousings used on engines with side motor mounts have significantly less applied stress than those used in front-mount C1 applications. Ergo, a failure should be somewhere between rare and non-existent.
While I have no opinions one way or another about that failure, I'd be very interested in the results of a formal failure analysis.
As has been pointed out, the bellhousings used on engines with side motor mounts have significantly less applied stress than those used in front-mount C1 applications. Ergo, a failure should be somewhere between rare and non-existent.
You'll get no argument from me on this point. It seems utterly intuitive to me. And as has been pointed out, thousands of front-mount setups were built and most of those bells enjoyed long lives - including many which were thoroughly abused.
I, too, would be keen to see failure analysis results, but that ship sailed many years ago. I spotted the cracks, but was not the one to replace the BH. That was a bigger task than I had the time to tackle, so my pal hired it out elsewhere. Thus, I only saw what's generally apparent in the posted photos. I've scratched my head numerous times, puzzling over the possible causes. My friend drove the car hard, but as far as I'm aware he did not beat on it or drag race it. It shall remain a mystery.
While not corvette related, I put a mid 70's aluminum bell housing thru a good stress test for 10 or so years. I guilt a model a ford, with a 354 Chrysler Hemi, front mounted, an used an old Wilcap adapter to bolt up the Chevy bellhousing and an M-21 muncie. As far as I know the car is still being driven with no issue to this day, so between the weight of that Hemi, my very hard use and the flexing of a Model A Ford frame, I'm going to say a stock bellhousing holds up pretty well
01-24-2024, 11:58 AM
Bell housing strength
