my original 327 pinion had a thickness of 1.874
the new (410) FRPP pinion head has a thickness of 1.895.
so since the new pinion head is .021 thicker, would it be logical to assume that the correct pinion shim would have to be somewhat thinner than the shim on the factory(327) ?,thats what the MHD method would conclude,however in my mind even though the 410 pinion head is thicker than the 327 head,the 410 pinion is definetly smaller in circumference,so I cant see how the MHD would lead towards the correct shim. to me the circumference has to make a difference in some way.
__________________
the new (410) FRPP pinion head has a thickness of 1.895.
so since the new pinion head is .021 thicker, would it be logical to assume that the correct pinion shim would have to be somewhat thinner than the shim on the factory(327) ?,thats what the MHD method would conclude,however in my mind even though the 410 pinion head is thicker than the 327 head,the 410 pinion is definetly smaller in circumference,so I cant see how the MHD would lead towards the correct shim. to me the circumference has to make a difference in some way.
__________________