• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

Starter Motor Madness

mrgem

mrgem

Member
I'm building a 331 stroker -- based on a 66 289 block -- for a project car. The original gearbox ( toploader), bellhouse and flywheel were gone when I bought the car. I found replacements that seemed to work and thought we'd had the problem licked. However...We recently went to install a new starter and the heartburn began.

Seems that Ford, in their infinite wisdom, decided sometime during the 1964 model year to quit using 164-tooth flywheels on small block manual trans cars and replaced it with a thicker, 157-tooth flywheel. The problem came to light when trying to install what O'reilly's listed as a 1965 small block manual trans starter. The starter would not fit into the hole on the sheetmetal blocking plate. The hole was just a tiny bit (less than 1/16") too small. To complicate things even more, there were two starters used for 65 -- A "short nose" and a "long nose" design that not only was dependent on the flywheel (or flex plate) spec and/or the transmission type.

The engine and trans are already installed in the car and I didn't want to pull the engine again or drop the trans. So right now our plan is to to use a dremel tool and open up the starter hole iin the blocking plate - being careful to try and pick up any filings that accumulate in the bellhouse. Does that sound reasonable?

I've attached a bit of info provided by Bob Mannel that covers the differences between starters.
 

Attachments

  • Starters 289.jpg
    Starters 289.jpg
    461.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Hey Mike!

" I am no help what-so-ever."

Nuthin changes does it?

Have spent so much time quarantining, it has driven me out to the garage.

Best to Miss Jo.
 
I had a similar problem with Midlife (1966 manual tranny). I bought a replacement starter and it simply would not fit into the hole. I went to a shop that actually made starters, and was told to use the automatic version that they sold and it fit like a dream. I'd try that first before doing anything to the block plate.
 
Hey Randy. Good good to hear from you. Looks like you guys left FL for the desert.

An A/T starter does fit the hole in the separator plate without modification. However the Bendix spring and drive gear "travel" (for lack of a better description) is different between some auto and manual starters. Mannel's notes indicate "Although the specific design of the starter might vary,the critical difference is in how deep the starter motor drive goes into the bellhousing or converter housing. The engine plate will index the starter motor for lateral position, but the depth into the housing will be determined by the starter motor itself..."

The diameter of the starter motor nose casting (which fits into the hole in the separator plate) is not the only difference.

I can recall years ago that I had a mustang 4-speed that kept chewing up the ring gear. I kept installing rebuilt starters whose drive did not put the gear deep enough to consistently engage the ring gear. Instead, it was partially engaging and ultimately tearing up the starter and the ring gear. After some head scratching, I concluded that the parts store application was reversed for manual and automatic trans cars. I took the starter and ring gear back to to the store and showed them the difference between the two starters. They agreed that their parts book (yes, it was that long ago) was wrong. Turns out they had been giving me auto trans starters. For the life of me, I cannot remember which starter finally worked right, but I suspect it was the "short nose" version that Mannel writes about.
 
JeffTepper said:
Glenn:

Have you tried having your "old" starter rebuilt?

Regards, Jeff
Click to expand...
Hey Jeff -- Good to see you alive and kicking! It's cool to see you, Randy, Mike and the folks from the old VMF group (like Mel) still turning wrenches and posting over here.

Unfortunately, this car sat behind a barn for 20+ years and was picked clean of its A-code/4-speed pieces, including the bellhouse, flywheel, starter, carb and intake, 4-speed, driveshaft etc. Assuming it was original, the separator plate was inside the car and appears to have been for a 164-tooth, short nose starter, but that's just a guess.

It's an early 65 (Sept. 1964) car and that was built right in the middle of Ford transitioning away from the thinner, 164-tooth bellhouse to the thick, 157-tooth set up.

I've got a 157-T flywheel and bellhouse on it now and know tons more since I began researching solutions. But ultimately, it will down to a starter with the appropriate starter drive and engagement of the flywheel.

As I said...Heartburn.
 
A bit late to this, heh, but figured I'd add some proof of life....
Since this is a performance build, did you consider something like this?
FWIW, everything small block I built over the years had 157 tooth flywheels or flexplates and starters were rarely a problem. If it went too deep I'd machine a shim; if too shallow I'd pull the snout and remove some material. Usually, though, no problems at all. I wonder if there's something wonky with the crank spec on the stroker crank. Hmm...
 
camachinist said:
A bit late to this, heh, but figured I'd add some proof of life....
Since this is a performance build, did you consider something like this?
FWIW, everything small block I built over the years had 157 tooth flywheels or flexplates and starters were rarely a problem. If it went too deep I'd machine a shim; if too shallow I'd pull the snout and remove some material. Usually, though, no problems at all. I wonder if there's something wonky with the crank spec on the stroker crank. Hmm...
Click to expand...
Pat -- Good to hear from you.

That starter would have worked, but the guy doing the serious work for me ordered and received a starter from some parts house he uses (NAPA, I think) for a 64.5 Mustang. Voila! It worked. He's told me that 65s with the 164T ring gear were rare -- but that's what I got, apparently!

Never have understood why Ford didn't design their starters to be shimmed....Would save a ton of heartburn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top