1969 Camaro with 3-Speed Manual Trans and Console?

[TimZ11C60]

Hey, everyone, my first time on the forum.  Hope you can help me.
 
I want to add a console (and do it correctly) to a 69 Camaro with a 307 and a three-speed manual transmission and factory floor shifter (RPO M11).  The car has the original Saginaw transmission and shifter.  My confusion comes from reading the assembly manual which says that the rubber boot used on the console equipped vehicles was the same for both three and four speed transmissions (part # 9795407).  However, the factory four-speed had a round, Hurst shifter lever, while the Saginaw shifter lever for the three-speed is rectangular.  The only boot I can find anywhere for the console application has a round hole for the four-speed lever.  In addition, the console shift tunnels for three and four speeds were different and had different part numbers.
   
My question is, if the seal is the same, then did console equipped vehicles come with a different shifter than the standard floor shift (without console)?  If that’s the case, how did it mount, onto the transmission, or onto the crossmember?   Was it a Hurst shifter, or some other type?

A different transmission or shifter is not shown anywhere in the assembly manual, nor have I ever read anything regarding this situation.

I know there was an offering of a heavy duty three speed transmission (RPO MC1).  Was this transmission somehow required when a console was selected (I doubt it)??

Thanks for any info on this.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a three speed with a console at any car shows I’ve attended over the years.  Most people probably swapped in the four-speed.

Tim   

[william]

The seal used with M11 is shown on page A1 of the M11 section: #3893853. It's the same seal used for the 67-68 Muncie 4-speed. Judging by the comments I see it either isn't reproduced or is poorly done. A CRG member is investigating having it reproduced.

For '69 MC1 was the new H-D Muncie 3-speed optional only with LM1. It was dropped as an option when LM1 was discontinued but remained the standard trans for SS cars. The shifter was Muncie also; same for M11 and MC1 with or without console. It mounted to the cross member. A console was not required.

Style points to you for keeping the 3-speed! Quite a few '69 Camaros were built with one.

[1968 Z28]

There is a NOS one on eBay for only $275.00.......     I can see why someone would want to get a good reproduction if the NOS is selling for that.

[TimZ11C60]

Hey, William, thank you very much!! 

That seal shown in the assembly manual is the one for a car without a console.  Is it the same seal used with a console, and you just use the unique 3-speed shift tunnel (part # 3949540 shown on D55 - A4) with the console? 

Thanks again!!

Tim

[william]

The D55 section of the AIM is vague for the 3-speed; the only real difference is the tunnel and emblem. The seal and retaining hardware are the same.

I was involved in Camaro parts business many years ago; we had many 3-speed tunnel & plate assemblies. I recall the tunnel was shorter and nearly round at the bottom compared to a 4-speed. I'll bet some old-time parts guys still have used ones.

[1968 Z28]

Tim....my 1969 Camaro Parts Catalog states that the 1969 3spd with a console uses a #3893873 seal (it is the same seal used on the 1967-1968 4spd & 3Spd with console) and the retainer is part #3893877 (also the same retainer used on the 1967-1968 4spd & 3spd with console)  You are right about the extension....it shows to be #3949540 for the 1969 3spd with console.

The #3893873 seal has been replaced with the #3974526 seal and is still available.  The retainer is available as a reproduction.

[william]

The #3974526 seal looks nothing like #3893853; isn't even close. That's why NOS is $275.

[1968 Z28]

The #3974526 seal looks nothing like #3893853; isn't even close. That's why NOS is $275.

William....the #3974526 seal replaces the #3893873 seal, not the #3893853 seal.  The #3893873 seal is used with a console and the #3893853 seal is used without a console.....you are right, there is a big difference between them.  Tim said he wants to add a console and is wanting to find the right one to use with the console.

[william]

Not true for '69. The AIM shows #3893853 is used with or with out a console.

For '67-'68 the console plate has the slider and the seal WAS different than the seal used without a console. For '69 the plastic tunnel replaced the slider. 

[TimZ11C60]

OK, guys!  Thanks for the help and education! 

I think from looking at pictures and from your discriptions that I should use the same seal that they used on both 3 and 4 speeds in 1967-68, along with the special shift tunnel for the 1969 3-speed. 

William, your discription of the 69 shift tunnel is correct, the tunnel is shorter and more round at the bottom than the four speed.  I have one of each so I can compare them.  Thanks again guys!  I guess it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one who might have been confused by this set-up.

Anyway, I'll try the 67-68 seal (for consoles) along with the shift tunnel for 1969 and see how it works out.  If you think of anything else,  or if you think I should do something different, let me know,. 

I'll just have to go with the less than perfect reproduction seal right now and keep my eyes open for a better roproduction in the future.  I'm not paying $275 for a shifter boot.

Tim   

 

[Stingr69]

Side comment - Boot retaining plate (on a '69 for sure and probably other years) differs if you have a console or not.  The boot retainer plate is chrome without a console.  The console cars got black boot retainer rings. 

[william]

That's only true for a 4-speed. For the 3-speed there is no difference in the seal, retainer or hardware with or without a console. The knob is chrome with a console; standard is black with shift pattern.

[Jon Mello]

It sure seems like the '67-'68 4-speed non-console boot would have a hard time fitting into the '69 console shift tunnel. I wonder if it's a typo and they really meant to call out the earlier console shift boot 3893873.

[1968 Z28]

It sure seems like the '67-'68 4-speed non-console boot would have a hard time fitting into the '69 console shift tunnel. I wonder if it's a typo and they really meant to call out the earlier console shift boot 3893873.

Agree John....I found a photo of a 1969 3spd. tunnel and it appears to me that the #3893853 boot bellows would be too bulky to fit inside the tunnel cutout.

BTW...would like to have that boot you are showing in your photo.

[Jon Mello]

BTW...would like to have that boot you are showing in your photo.

    This is the style of shift boot we are looking into getting reproduced.