Hurst mount bracket

The Parts Place lists one for 69-72 cars, are 68's different?

 

In these shift linkage pics it clearly looks like 68-69 uses one bracket and the 70-72 cars use the style that TPP sells.
Shifter bodies stayed the same and the mounting holes on the Muncies never changed so I would think that either one would work.

 

Here is TPP's bracket.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969...emQQcategoryZ10076QQihZ013QQitemZ230213815815

 

Thanks, thats the one I was looking at, can't seem to find my old one.
I thought they were all the same (muncies,shifters), but I knew the linkage was different,so I figured there was a chance 68 was diff. somehow.
thanks for the parts diagram also, it will help

 

Well, after looking at the diagrams again, I see that the 70-72 style is the one TPP sells. The one for 68-69 appears the have one less bolt hole(5 vs.6), and maybe less bends to it,(flat on the bottom).
The shifter body didn't change, muncies never changed, maybe this was a design change to make the mount stronger? Couldn't be for consolette vs. non.

 

Well, I went over and talked to my muncie man. He told me the extra hole in the bracket makes it a dual mount unit and will work for all muncies ,m-20, m-21, and the wider spaced m-22
Was the rockcrusher an optional trans in 70-72?

 

I believe all GS' were built with M-21s but there are a few documented Buicks with M20s. Even my brothers GS350 4-speed vert came with an m21 and it only had a 3.08 rearend.ou:

 

My 68 400 came with a m-20, my understanding is cars with 3.64? or higher had the m-20, lesser ratios came with m-21

 

Normally GM would mate the close ratio m21, m22 to a higher/steeper gearset. 3.64, 3.73, 4.10 etc would be better gears with the lower close ratio m21 and m22.
But it seems like Buick did it a little different. They had no problem mating the m21 to a 3.08 or 3.42.
I have a m21 that was originally from a 68 GS400.