Sealing without a seal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
16
Location
NH
Preamble:
In 1992 I bought a '57 Chevy pickup which had been off the road for many, many years. I serviced the original trans with fresh gear lube before the truck went back on the road and drove it all over Montana and even on an 8hr trip to Nebraska for many years without troubles. Driving the truck with a relatively heavy trailer across country one December the trans input shaft started to leak. This transmission has no input shaft seal by design, only an oil slinger. Multiple attempts at fixing the leak resulted in multiple failures. New bearings, new slinger, larger drain hole in the case, shielded front bearing, even adjusting the fill level lower have not cured the issue. I've tried different weight oils including 75W, 90w, and multi-viscosity. It's currently using 140 wt gear oil. This is not a small leak. Its soaked two clutches so they cannot hold the full torque the engine produces. I have plans to replace the trans with a modern design 5 speed and as I only drive it a few hundred miles a year I have lived with the leak knowing a change is approaching. I suspect this problem is related to a difference between gear oil in '57 and gear oil today since the trans should be in exactly the same condition if not better than when designed.

Current situation:
I now have a 1936 Plymouth which I intend to start driving. I hope to take it on a 150 mile trip in July. Like the '57, it has no front seal, only an oil slinger. This car has old oil in the trans as it's been stored since '59. I'd like to add to or replace the trans fluid but I'm not too excited at the thought of soaking the clutch and underside with gear oil if this one starts to leak. In my '36 Plymouth manual I noticed this statement: "For certain purposes such as decreasing the tendency for lubricant to leak from the case, small amounts of soap or other materials are sometimes added by manufacturers of lubricants."

Question:
Is old gear oil likely to have ingredients not needed in commercially available oil today? Is there an additive which could provide the same effect? Is there an oil which is likely to contain these additives? I'm used to searching for mechanical parts that aren't available for this car, but finding chemistry that has been left behind might be tougher.

Note: Maybe adding bar and chain oil to the gear oil would be sufficient? That stuff barely pours out of a jug when temp is below 60 deg, it clings to everything, and it's loaded with extreme pressure lubricant.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
I'd be looking at crankcase pressures.

That's a good suggestion. I've cleaned the vent (which seemed to be free anyway), installed a larger tube, attached a hose and moved the end of the vent to a couple of different locations without success.

Quote:
Is it possible to modify the housing or make a plate for seal?

Possible but a very time consuming and extensive project. Much easier to finish conversion to late model transmission with overdrive.

I've been a mechanic for a fair amount of time and I'm confident that the mechanical condition of the transmission is at least as good as, if not better than new. Other than dual exhaust the undercarriage of this vehicle is stock. I believe stock engineering should be sufficient but it's not. I suspect factors are involved that were not considered during the original design. I am trying to isolate or rule out oil. The goal is not to solve the truck issue but to prevent a similar problem in the Plymouth.
 
Last edited:
I have the same transmission in my Jeep. It's a Muncie SM420 manufactured from 1947 to 1967. The unit I have is out of a 1953 2.5 ton Chevy dump truck and uses the front slinger for oil retention. I very really have a leak, maybe a tiny bit if I am driving down a steep obstacle. On a past trip to Moab, UT, I did not loose ANY gear oil at all.

If yours is a 1957 unit, then it DOES have the front neoprene seal. I would suspect that it is probably time to replace it.

From NOVAK Conversions: http://www.novak-adapt.com/knowledge/sm420.htm


1947-1953:
1. No ribs on the case
2. Grooved worm on the input shaft instead of neoprene seal
3. Synchro rings all differ from each other. 1st-2nd synchro ring is bronze
4. Weep hole at 6 o'clock on the bearing retainer snout
5. Six digit casting number on the case, usually like "59xxxx" e.g., 591665.
1954-1963:
1. Same as previous but uses a neoprene input oil seal
2. No weep hole at 6 o'clock on the bearing retainer snout
1964-1967: Same as previous except
1. 1st-2nd synchro ring is aluminum and 3rd-4th synchro rings are identical to each other
2. Seven digit casting number usually like "37xxxxx", "38xxxxx" or "39xxxxx"
1968-1981: Military Con-Diesel version. Features the strongest case and optimized internals. Usually equipped with unique top cover, but can be converted to standard top-shift control.
 
Zaedock, this is a 57 unit. Date code matches manufacture date of truck. It's an SM420. It does not have a front seal. Input shaft disassembly with oil slinger is described in '55 Chevy truck manual below. The scanned image is almost clear enough to make out the worm gear for the oil. http://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/shop/1955truck2/55ctsm0753.htm You can also check your favorite online seal catalog to see if there's a listing for a front seal.

mechtech2. BTDT got the Tee-shirt. New slinger (twice, actually). New bearings. Trans disassembled and reassembled with parts selected to ensure clearances are on the tight side. Input shaft end play in spec. Output shaft end play in spec. Output shaft pilot OD in spec. Input shaft rear support brg ID in spec. Bearing retainer replaced. Weep hole in front of trans opened to larger diameter. Pilot bushing replaced twice. Remember that this trans had no leak for a long time. On a nearly continuous trip across country it started to leak and has leaked since then. The vehicle configuration was the same before, during, and after the trip. My thought was the gear oil warmed enough to dissolve something that was preventing a leak.

So, again, the question is related to gear oil, not solving the leak in the truck. Detergents in new oils not present in old oil? Lack of additives which help keep oil sticky?
 
Last edited:
Zaedock, this is a 57 unit. Date code matches manufacture date of truck. It's an SM420. It does not have a front seal. Input shaft disassembly with oil slinger is described in '55 Chevy truck manual below. The scanned image is almost clear enough to make out the worm gear for the oil. http://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/shop/1955truck2/55ctsm0753.htm

Complete breakdown available in beginning of trans section:
http://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/shop/1955truck2/55ctsm0748.htm

mechtech2. BTDT got the Tee-shirt. New slinger (twice, actually). New bearings. Trans disassembled and reassembled with parts selected to ensure clearances are on the tight side. Input shaft end play in spec. Output shaft end play in spec. Output shaft pilot OD in spec. Input shaft rear ID in spec. Bearing retainer replaced. Weep hole in front of trans opened to larger diameter. Remember that this trans had no leak for a long time. On a nearly continuous trip across country it started to leak and has leaked since then. The vehicle configuration was the same before, during, and after the trip.

So, again, the question is related to gear oil, not solving the leak in the truck. Detergents in new oils not present in old oil? Lack of additives which help keep oil sticky?
 
Originally Posted By: 1project2many


So, again, the question is related to gear oil, not solving the leak in the truck. Detergents in new oils not present in old oil? Lack of additives which help keep oil sticky?



Today's gear oils have nothing to do with your leak. I have two slinger SM420's in operation(one is a '50 the other a '53), with much more severe angles than your truck will ever see, and I do not have leakage as you describe. I run Coastal 80W90 GL3/GL4/GL5 rated gear oil.

It is a transmission issue and while you have a 1950's service manual, I have never seen this model built after 1954 with a front slinger, although I'm sure some carried over to '55. The front input bearing retainer is a wear item, so it's possible that your '57 has earlier components. Also, I don't think it is a venting issue as the shifters in these tranny's aren't exactly a tight fit.


Novak makes a neoprene seal kit that is very inexpensive. Either way, these guys are great to talk to and may be able to shed some light on your issue.
http://www.novak-adapt.com/contact/contact.htm
 
Zaedock, thanks for taking the time.

I cut my teeth on '55-57 Chevy trucks when Reagan was being elected and I've never seen one of these trans from those vehicles with a front seal. My '57 manual's trans section is an exact copy of the '55 manual online and the trans itself matches the manual. This isn't the first time that an aftermarket supplier's information doesn't match what the vehicle manufacturer supplied.

I did notice the kit from Novak. It's an inexpensive solution. Obviously enough people have a problem that Novak decided to invest in a solution. I actually started an NV4500 conversion several years ago. I hope to finish it this summer so I'm not going to spend any more time or money on the four speed.
 
No problem man! There is nothing worse than pulling / fixing / reinstalling and still having the same issue. I hope the 4500 swap goes well! I considered it, but it was easier to swap the 420 behind my AMC 2.5L with a GM 60* V6 bellhousing.

Let me know if you want to part with your old 420. Gears and hard parts are getting tougher to find. We head up north from time to time for vacation or to visit family.

Take care.
 
I'm still keeping an open mind. There's obviously enough demand for an aftermarket fix but as mentioned there are plenty of transmissions without the fix that don't exhibit these symptoms.

I may never know the problem with the truck trans but I will be able to report if using modern 140 wt oil leads to leaks at the input shaft in my old Plymouth. The original 160 wt oil is no longer available. While modern gear oils with similar ISO viscosity are available for industrial use in 5 gallon pails, at $30 per gallon I'm going to try reducing total cash outlay by going with 140 wt available in one gallon containers. And as a FWIW the original 160 wt has an ISO viscosity of 680, 140wt has an ISO viscosity of about 460, and a multi grade 80W90 has an ISO viscosity of about 120. That's a substantial difference when expecting on the oil's warm flow characteristics to work with an unsealed gearbox.
 
Last edited:
You could try adding a thick version of STP to the trans oil to thicken it up.
Cheap and easy, and it would bring up the viscosity for sure!
 
Try dumping in (or spooning on a cool day) a bottle of STP. It is some of the thickest and stickiest stuff known to man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom