Hemi torqueflite valve body

Posted By: 68jim

Hemi torqueflite valve body - 04/29/11 12:28 AM

I recently went through a box of tranny parts I got with my original hemi transmission case. Fortunately the front and rear clutch retainers were present. The curved vent baffle is missing but it looks like it will be pretty easy to modify a standard square one. The governor weights and kickdown lever are missing but those are easily sourced. - Question I have for the group is about the valve body which is missing... Was there anything unique about the hemi version vice the standard one? In case it matters, this is for a 68.

Jim

Attached picture 6607618-DCP02243.JPG

Posted By: dOoC

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 04/29/11 12:36 AM

I am not aware of any real diff ...... other than maybe a tweak on the line-pressure.

Posted By: John_Kunkel

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 04/29/11 09:14 PM

In '68 the Hemi VB is identical to the 440 HP, even the same part number.

Even then, the only difference between them and any other BB 727 VB is the transfer plate. I don't have a sample of each to compare to see what the actual difference is but I'm sure it's minor.

Posted By: RAH

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 04/30/11 12:24 PM

I am the owner of a 1968 hemi charger auto. the transfer had modifications done to it to improve flow of oil. I have been told the B&M trany shift kit will have transfer plate and modifications that will make a standard valve body shift like a hemi valve body. if you need help call me 708 687 1187. I have a 68 spare hemi trans in my basement and i might be able to photograph the parts needed bob h

Attached picture 6609637-P1010034.JPG

Posted By: John_Kunkel

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 04/30/11 09:02 PM

Don't confuse the transfer plate (aluminum casting) with the separator plate (stamped steel sheet).

Posted By: 68jim

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/01/11 04:31 PM

Thanks all for the input. Bob and I have had the conversation about the separator plate and the B&M kit being close. My trans guy and I have found a 69 VB to use. He has both B&M and TransGo kits so we will decide later. It would surprise me that Chrysler would release two versions of VB under the same part#. If Bob or anyone else gets the opportunity to compare a known "Hemi" VB side by side with another standard VB for comparison and share the differences that would be great. I modified a vent baffle this weekend to work with the wider drum - took about 45 minutes - wish all mods were this easy...
Anyone remember the magazine issue many years ago that talked about the governor differences. I'm pretty sure I have the old magazine just can't remember the issue.

Thanks again,

Jim

Posted By: RAH

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/01/11 06:12 PM

Jim If you need me to make you a copy of the holes on the separator plate so you can get the right separator plate. If i remember the transfer plate is the same part number as a 383 torqueflite stock. I believe i have a NOS transfer plate. I have a 1968 hemi original trans apart in basement and it has never been modified. 2801544 case. if you need help feel free to ask and i will gibe you some answers. Your friend bob horman 708 687 1187 Jim i checked my parts book and the valve body complete is the same body used in 2801541 trans found in 1968 mopar cars 440 auto trans. I believe i have one if needed in the future bob horman 708 687 1187

Attached picture 6611786-P1010034.JPG

Posted By: John_Kunkel

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/01/11 09:07 PM

Quote:

If i remember the transfer plate is the same part number as a 383 torqueflite stock.

Nope, in '68 only the Hemi and the 440 used the same transfer plate. The Hemi and 440 use P/N 2466886; all others (yes even the 904) use P/N 2801295.

I dug around in my parts stash and found an example of each, the only difference I can see is the depth of the channel (second channel from the right) that feeds the rear servo. In pic below the plate on the right is the 886 and it has a noticeably deeper channel than the 295 on the right. I believe this is to allow a quicker apply/release of the rear servo...an advantage on a manual 1-2 shift.

Attached picture 6612151-LRchannel.jpg

Posted By: RAH

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/02/11 01:29 PM

John I am not trying to out knowledge you. You may hve more experience. I rebuilt several of these trans (hemi) and i am just trying to help jim if he needs help bob horman 708 687 1187

Attached picture 6613594-P1010034.JPG

Posted By: 68jim

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/02/11 05:36 PM

Guys, this is a great exchange of information from both sides. I did not know about the different depths for that fluid passage. A few questions for the gallery - From your experiences with shift kits etc., is this passage also modified with a larger hole in the seperator plate? I understand about the deeper passage resulting in more volume of fluid moving through it, do you know if that deeper passage is carried on to later model VBs? I'll have to verify the 69 VB later tonight to see what it has and the report the corrosponding part#. If this applies for a manual shift 1-2, does it have any affect on a normal 1-2 and/or 2-3 shift when "Drive" is selected? It may look like transmission minutia but I like learning new stuff. Thanks again for everyone's help!

Jim

Attached picture 6613850-DCP02780.JPG

Posted By: John_Kunkel

Re: Hemi torqueflite valve body - 05/02/11 07:23 PM

Since it's inception, the 727 has had a problem with rear servo and rear band breakage; this is due to the fact that line pressure is about 3 times higher (around 300 psi) in Reverse than in the forward gears. I believe that they purposely made the rear servo feed passage smaller on most units to limit the flow to the rear servo to help prevent problems. I also believe they made the passage deeper in HP versions to aid servo release.

In later years ('71-on) they did make the rear servo feed orifice in the steel separator plate smaller to limit flow and most kits instruct you to enlarge this orifice. The ideal setup was used for a few years when they used two orifices in the steel plate (one large, one small) to feed the rear servo, the large orifice was blocked with a check ball during apply that fell out of the way during release but they (unwisely IMHO) dropped this feature.

The deeper passage did carry on into later years due to the smaller feed orifice that serves the same purpose as the shallow passage.

Since the rear servo isn't applied in Drive the size of the passage/orifice has no effect on the 1-2 upshift in Drive.

The rear servo plays no part in 2-3 upshifts.