Starter/ring gear not engaging

[Garrett Hurley]

Installed a mini starter on my slant which had just had been rebuilt, early 904 trans and later 70s motor, used the correct spacer as well. Starter seemed to work fine until i kicked the motor over a few times, and it made a horrible grinding only at one spot. When i turned motor by hand it would revolve until that same point and then grrrrrrr. Upon inspection seems the throwout gear is barely hitting the edge of the ring gear, so it did spin hanging on maybe a 1/8 of the teeth. So i got another mini starter thinking it might be cause the starter got fried turning it over so much trying to break the motor in, and this one doesnt even engage the ring gear at all. Figured i would see what yall had to say before i start to drop the trans again. Also i dont have the original starter but im assuming the odds of my 64 valiant being a high mount direct drive is very slim. Looking under the car while my dad cranks, looks like i need another 1/8-1/4 of travel for adequate engagement of the ring gear.

 

[RAT ROD AL]

Does an old OEM gear reduction starter work on it ?

 

[Garrett Hurley]

Does an old OEM gear reduction starter

Does an old OEM gear reduction starter work on it ?

Not sure, I dont have one laying around to try, and not sure if it will fit around my headers

 

[RAT ROD AL]

@RustyRatRod what starter this guy need ?

 

[RAT ROD AL]

What spacer did you use ? And where ?

 

[RAT ROD AL]

What you mean by early 904 , what year ?

 

[Garrett Hurley]

What spacer did you use ? And where ?

Between the pump hub and crank because the trans is 64 and motor is later 70s.

 

[67Dart273]

I hope you are talking about the BUSHING in the crank converter recess which makes up the diametrical difference between later cranks, and the smaller / early converter snout.

That, actually, should not affect the starter

 

[Garrett Hurley]

I hope you are talking about the BUSHING in the crank converter recess which makes up the diametrical difference between later cranks, and the smaller / early converter snout.

That, actually, should not affect the starter

Yes thats what I mean, thank you.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Not all of the later lightweight starters work with all Mopar products. Look at the starter gear. If it has a small "nipple" on the end with no gear teeth, it will not extend as far as one without. THe industry lumps them all together as one part number so that makes it difficult to get the right one.

 

[Garrett Hurley]

Not all of the later lightweight starters work with all Mopar products. Look at the starter gear. If it has a small "nipple" on the end with no gear teeth, it will not extend as far as one without. THe industry lumps them all together as one part number so that makes it difficult to get the right one.

Ahh Makes sense, these are the 2 ive been using, im assuming thats the nipple youre talking about. What should i look for when buying a new one? Or maybe i can replace with different bendix gear?

 

[Tanker]

I had this problem on my Duster years ago. The engine has a tendency to come to a stop in the same position when shut down, so when you start it the starter engages the same spot on the ring gear repeatedly. The teeth in that spot on the ring gear got rounded due to repeated use so that the starter wouldn’t properly engage and instead would slip. On my car the problem was solved by turning the ring gear around. Never happened again.

 

[Professor Fate]

"Early 904".
What year? What model? What are we working on here?
The early '60s 904s used a different ring gear than mid 60s or later 904s, and therefore a different drive gear on the starter- a 9 tooth vs a 10 tooth on the later starters. There are differences in the starter and ring gear, and differences in the way the starters are wired and hooked up, and the years affected differ by US/Canadian production. I'm no slant 6 guru but I've seen this problem posted enough times to have it ingrained into a dark corner of my mind...
I believe @slantsixdan actually sells 9 tooth drive gears that fit the later 10 tooth (real Denso) mini starters.

 

[slantsixdan]

The early '60s 904s used a different ring gear than mid 60s or later 904s, and therefore a different drive gear on the starter- a 9 tooth vs a 10 tooth on the later starters. There are differences in the starter and ring gear, and differences in the way the starters are wired and hooked up, and the years affected differ by US/Canadian production...

None of that is applicable to this case. You're thinking of this.

I believe @slantsixdan actually sells 9 tooth drive gears that fit the later 10 tooth (real Denso) mini starters.

I don't; you're thinking of this.

 

[slantsixdan]

Not all of the later lightweight starters work with all Mopar products. Look at the starter gear. If it has a small "nipple" on the end with no gear teeth, it will not extend as far as one without. THe industry lumps them all together as one part number so that makes it difficult to get the right one.

Mmmm…nope.

All '89-'03 RWD/4WD 3.9, 5.2, and 5.9 starters with the nosecone as part of the front casting will bolt up and work correctly on any '62-up RWD/4WD vehicle that originally came with the Chrysler gear-reduction starter.

Same with that Bosch-type starter I linked here.

Same with the '05-'08 Ram 5.7 Hemi/manual-trans starter I linked in that same post (though in Slant-6 applications it requires a minor bolt hole mod, described at the link)

Minor differences in the design details of the drive pinion on the Denso starter aren't the thing; the "will bolt on/won't work properly" mini starter is the one without a nosecone, first used with automatic transmissions in '02.

 

[Professor Fate]

None of that is applicable to this case. You're thinking of this.



I don't; you're thinking of this.

Thanks for clarifying, Dan.
Although it could still be applicable in this case, depending on the year of the trans/convertor:

Installed a mini starter on my slant which had just had been rebuilt, early 904 trans

 

[slantsixdan]

these are the 2 ive been using

Can't see enough of these to identify the starters well enough to comment definitively – fix that, please, by at least telling us what you bought and where, and maybe showing some zoomed-out pics so we can see both starters entire.

Still, based on what we can see, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that either of these ought to work if they're not completely garbage quality (which is easy to buy).

What is between the starter and the bellhousing? There's meant to be a "seal" (shim plate). The lack of one would move the starter closer to Rudolf,* though, not further away. So if crummy starter quality isn't to blame, I suspect a fault in the engine-to-transmission, assembly, the flexplate-to-torque-converter assembly, and/or flexplate-to-crankshaft assembly.

*the red-nosed ring gear

 

[slantsixdan]

Thanks for clarifying, Dan.
Although it could still be applicable in this case

Couldn't. OP reports the engine did crank fine until it didn't, which is never the case when a 9-tooth starter is put where a 10-tooth item belongs or vice-versa.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Mmmm…nope.

All '89-'03 RWD/4WD 3.9, 5.2, and 5.9 starters with the nosecone as part of the front casting will bolt up and work correctly on any '62-up RWD/4WD vehicle that originally came with the Chrysler gear-reduction starter.

Same with that Bosch-type starter I linked here.

Same with the '05-'08 Ram 5.7 Hemi/manual-trans starter I linked in that same post (though in Slant-6 applications it requires a minor bolt hole mod, described at the link)

Minor differences in the design details of the drive pinion on the Denso starter aren't the thing; the "will bolt on/won't work properly" mini starter is the one without a nosecone, first used with automatic transmissions in '02.

Thanks, Dan!

 

[Plymouth Pete]

Man, mini starters really out here playing hide and seek with the ring gear. It’s like they’re almost trying, but not quite. Classic Mopar shenanigans. Hope you don’t have to pull that trans again, but it’s kinda feeling like it’s heading that way

 

[Garrett Hurley]

Thank you guys for all your responses its been very helpful, as of now im grinding 3/16 off of one of the starters as a temporary fix,I know not ideal. but will definitely look into flipping the ring gear around, and paying closer attention to the tolerances when i drop the trans again. I just did a whole overhaul on my valiant and would like to at least get a few miles on her before i take it apart again. Will report back the results.

 

[Garrett Hurley]

Can't see enough of these to identify the starters well enough to comment definitively – fix that, please, by at least telling us what you bought and where, and maybe showing some zoomed-out pics so we can see both starters entire.

Still, based on what we can see, it's a pretty reasonable assumption that either of these ought to work if they're not completely garbage quality (which is easy to buy).

What is between the starter and the bellhousing? There's meant to be a "seal" (shim plate). The lack of one would move the starter closer to Rudolf,* though, not further away. So if crummy starter quality isn't to blame, I suspect a fault in the engine-to-transmission, assembly, the flexplate-to-torque-converter assembly, and/or flexplate-to-crankshaft assembly.

*the red-nosed ring gear

One is a parts store starter, and one is a cheap ebay one, but both same newer style starter with snouts. i didnt install the shim. Before installing the trans/motor i did check the tolerances as per the mopar manual said and nothing was out of whack, I used the correct crank hub bushing,and got the correct flexplate, being the trans is 64 and the motor i believe 74. So hopefully its the starter quality, but its also my first time rebuilding a motor so I wouldnt put it past myself that it could be installed incorrectly.

 

[slantsixdan]

i didnt install the shim.

It needs to be there, whatever starter you wind up using. If you need a new one, they're available.

Before installing the trans/motor i did check the tolerances as per the mopar manual said and nothing was out of whack, I used the correct crank hub bushing,and got the correct flexplate, being the trans is 64 and the motor i believe 74.

Good…

my first time rebuilding a motor so I wouldnt put it past myself that it could be installed incorrectly.

Could be, and that's still my leading guess. Keep sleuthing methodically.