Printable View
I am looking at a transmission with exterior numbers 901.301.101.02 and serial number 100476. It looks like from a picture that it has the 48/64 inside of a cirlce marked on it. Seller says it is a 5 speed from a 68. Anybody have an idea of what it is, year? 901/0X ? Thoughts?
Thanks
Mark
The serial number should be a 7-digit number.
Mark,
I assume this is an aluminum casting. I’m pretty sure it is a 901/0. If so it is (was?) geared AA-GA-O-U-Y. The range of transmission numbers for this entire series is: 100001 to 102282 (last 26Jul'65); I would expect it to have a ‘regular’ (not simplified) differential with a 7:31 ring & pinion and axle flanges for 4-bolt Nadella axles. I don't think it could have come with Lobro 6-bolt axles. I suspect there were some with the small ZF LSD from the 904 & 906. You can tell by inspecting the Nadella flanges.
I think that may be a late ’64 built, '65 model but not in the “First Series” of 235 chassis. It is probably number 476 where there were 360 engines for the “First Series”. It probably will NOT have a reinforced input shaft.
If you don’t have an immediate use for it, I would like to offer to buy it. I can also rebuild it for you for free (you provide the parts) or simply disaemble/reassimble and photo document it for the Pelican/Dempsey/Anderson/Clay “someday” transmission book and for your archive.
Best,
Grady
it is easiest to email me; gradyclay at hotmaildotcom
Mark,
I’ll add a few more details; the circle with 48/64 indicates it was cast 48th week in 1964. I think the casting number 901.301.101.02 is consistent with late ’64 manufacture. By ’65 Porsche had changed to a casting number ending in “R” (for example I’m looking at a virgin ’67 (date 32/66) with casting number 901.301.101.0R.)
With this transmission number, the type number should be 901/0 and not 901/00 or 901/01. This number should be stamped on the bottom rib under the differential area.
The ’65 has value in a restoration and the ’68 (if it is one) has a stronger input shaft and more desirable ratios.
I would not buy any used transmission without an internal inspection. If run out of oil, rusted or had a serious calamity, it possibly is not even be worth the cost of shipping.
Best,
Grady
Cited References:
Porsche 912 911 911T 911L 911S Technical Specifications, IV/83, 4203.20, pp. 6-7, and 62-63.
Paternie, P.C. Porsche 911 Red Book1965-1999, 2000, MBI
Porsche Data Book, Translation by Albrecht, P.L., 2006, Haynes.
Grady Clay archives.
I have tried for an hour to insert an image but I can't. Ill copy and post on Pelican 911 Technical Forum. Dumb ol' me. :confused:
Grady
Even dumber, I'm in edit mode, browse and find image title, upload and go to prieview mode. Image doesn't show up. This is what forces me to stick (mostly) to one forum.
Grady
Grady,Quote:
Originally Posted by Grady Clay
Don't be confused. Dumb is not included in your skill set.
Next time you need to do this, try this:
If you are posting a new reply:
1-Scroll down below the window where you enter your text.
2-You will see a button labelled "Manage Attachments".
3-Click on this button.
4-A menu will appear in a new window that will allow you to upload pictures etc.
If you are editing an existing post:
1-Click on the "Edit" button.
2-In the bottom of the edit window, there is a button labelled "Go Advanced"
3-Click on "Go Advanced" button. A full editor screen (like the one you get for a new post) will open.
4-Below the text box is a Button Labelled "Manage Attachments".
5-Yep, you guessed it, click on the "Manage Attachments" button.
6-You will know what to do from there.
"Dumb 'ol me" ... I think not. :)
Regards,
Harry
I was able to look at another picture tonight and it definitely has 6 bolt flange on it. No doubt about that. I assume it could have been upgraded or modified???
I can't really determine in the pictures a comparison to the drawings but they look very close save the flanges.
Thanks for the information from everyone. I really appreciate it. Grady, as soon as I decide what I am going to do, I will let you know. Thanks for the offer.
Thanks again everyone.
Mark
If it is a 901/0 and it is for sale, please let me know.
Grady, my car, a MY '66 built in October '65 is kardexed as having a 901/0 tranny of serial number 223356 (which is currently missing).
Any 901/0 is of interest to me at this point.
Kenik,
Transmission 223356 more likely was a 902/1 not 901/0. I can’t tell (yet) from my notes. It doesn’t appear in the Porsche stuff I have or the commercial books (which are full of errors).
I can see 902/1 numbers 220001 to 221721 to 26July’65. That would put your 223356 about right for your October ’65 production. If your CoA says 901/0 for 223356, I suspect an error. That can be corrected.
Let me see what I can find with the correct type and a closer transmission number. If you aren’t in any great hurry, I can build you one that is exactly correct (except for the transmission number) or has the best combination of internal parts. You supply the new parts and I work for free. Email me.
Best,
Grady
Mark,
Looking at your signature, you don’t want a 901/0 for your ‘67S (307465S).. Clearly it would have a 901/02. The transmission number is probably in the range 103001 to 105191.
If you are simply looking for a spare the 901/0 would work. It wouldn’t be period correct for the ‘67S. You should be able to find a 901/02.
Does your S have the original transmission? If not, have you researched the original number and type (CoA)?
If you are building an early ’65, that is a different story.
Best,
Grady
Grady:
I don't have a tranny for my 67S. My COA says it should have been transmission number 104159. When I found my car it was a barn find, in pieces. I have everything but the tranny. So yes I am looking for a period correct 901/02. I was also looking for a tranny and or a spare not knowing if I can find a 901/02.
When I saw this tranny for sale, i was looking to see from what era it was. The owner claimed it was a 68 but given the serial number, I thought it was much earlier and the 64 on the case took me in that direction. I made an initial assumption I could regear it until I got your and the other comments. Looks like it would be better off in the hands of you or Kenik.
I am looking to see if it is still available and will let you know.
Thanks
Mark