• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

T5 swap, all you need to know

i dont think it had to do with vibrations doug, i think it had something to do with relative material streght over a certain distance, possibly something having to do with the centripital forces the shaft would experience rotating over a given rpm (maybe a tendency to balloon towards the middle of the shaft or something), metal fatigue et al. I don't remember, but dude definitly had an f150 shaft modified with the f150 center support bushing and stuff for that reason. I suppose it could be an urban legend :e-shrug:
 
[quote:769b1158bd]I found a T5 for an 84-92 camaro / firebird. It will be for my 745.[/quote:769b1158bd]
the camaro t5 is meant to be tilted towards the driver, using the adapter will point the shitfer upright, but the mount and tail housing will be tilted. with the tail it makes the tail sit approx 1" towards the driver. in brief use a ford.
[quote:769b1158bd]And as for those concerned with the proper displacement for the master cylinder. McLeod offers a master cylinder add-on kit to the hyd TO bearing assembly (part number 13195), which, among other things including the BSS 4-AN line, includes a Wilwood 3/4 inch ID bore master cylinder that bolts up perfectly with the stock master cylinder mounting location. The only modification would be to cut 1/2 inch off the end of the threaded pushrod, and to fit the stock clutch pedal attachment fitting on the end[/quote:769b1158bd]
you can also use a 260 one, on 200's atleast. .75" bore. fits w/o mods, & cheap used. also can mod lines.
[quote:769b1158bd]I talked to the Volvord guy and he said on his 740 a 80-82 Auto Thunderbird's slip yoke will fit the u-joints of a 740 driveshaft and have same spline as t5. Will that be the case for a 240?
[/quote:769b1158bd]
just avoid it and replace the drive shaft flange to dana 1310 u-joint(very common, cheap & upgradible) i think the part # is 329? easy to find used, that way you don't have a frankenstien driveshaft, but a easy to fab & balance, cheap driveshaft.
[quote:769b1158bd]I haven't noticed any odd vibration in mine at 120+, though its atleast 3" in DIA (I think 3.25 iirc). Its a beast.
[/quote:769b1158bd]
with a 3.25" driveshaft ( at 47", prob your length) your max opper rpm would be 7345 rpm (approx 565 rpms per 1/4 in)
7348 rpm / 3.31gears = a volvo w/ 185/70-14's (24.2" d) would turn 2219 rpms right? 24.2 d x pi = distance covered per rev, 75.998 in. 2219 rpms x 75.998 in = 168617.372 in per min/ 12 (feet)/ 5280 ( feet in mile) x 60 (min in hour) = 159.67 mph, this is your max speed w/ this shaft.
[quote:769b1158bd]figure most "muscle" cars new and old are single 1pc larger shafts (3" or bigger) they all seem to work fine at hi driveshaft RPM too.[/quote:769b1158bd]
this is why they're so big, smaller shaft, less speed before the harmonics meet and it goes boom. if you notice big trucks use two due to the gearing, and the large tires.
oh ya, if you use to drive shafts you double the speed.
-questions
- for white blocks, if you use a m90 bellhousing & flywheel ect., could you mount a t5 to a 960 or 850 motor? it would be a much cheaper & stronger alternative (after shipping)
- could a bellhousing adapter be made to convert to gm or ford? imagine powerglide, t56 or a aod behind a race volvo!
 
If a T5 can be made to fit in a brick, so can any other damn tranny in the world. Just depends on how much time, money, and effort you want to put into it. As for the T56 et al, I doubt there would be too much work to get it to fit, just have to make an adaptor plate or a modified BH or something.
Speaking of T56: A friend of mine has a T56 sitting around he'e like to sell. He was originally going to put it into a '67 Firebird, but went with something else (don't remember what). So now he's got a perfectly good T56 6-speed Firebird/Camaro tranny sitting around. $1400 negotiable, plus shipping.
 
n xntrx volvo said:
[quote:bdd69415ba]I found a T5 for an 84-92 camaro / firebird. It will be for my 745.
Click to expand...
the camaro t5 is meant to be tilted towards the driver, using the adapter will point the shitfer upright, but the mount and tail housing will be tilted. with the tail it makes the tail sit approx 1" towards the driver. in brief use a ford.
[/quote:bdd69415ba]

That sucks, since the position of the shifter fore and aft is much nicer for a 7/9 series. Perhaps with the right mounts, the tail position would be ok, even with a 2pc driveshaft (it must work on the camaro (though with a 1pc), eh?)

n xntrx volvo said:
- for white blocks, if you use a m90 bellhousing & flywheel ect., could you mount a t5 to a 960 or 850 motor? it would be a much cheaper & stronger alternative (after shipping)
Click to expand...

As I understand it, M90s are a one piece casting, no separable bellhousing. Thus, you couldn't pull the same trick on a whiteblock (at least not with an m90 bell, and I'm not aware of any other manuals on the whiteblocks, i don't think they ever used M46).

Andy
 
Yeah, I confirmed this:

stick940T said:
As I understand it, M90s are a one piece casting, no separable bellhousing. Thus, you couldn't pull the same trick on a whiteblock (at least not with an m90 bell, and I'm not aware of any other manuals on the whiteblocks, i don't think they ever used M46).
Click to expand...

i.e. no M46 on whiteblock, M90 1pc, no separate bellhousing.

However, 945ti said in another thread that the AW30-40 (whiteblock) auto bellhousing interchanges with AW7X (redblock) auto bellhousing. I have no idea what the feasbility of putting a clutch into an auto bellhousing is. _perhaps_ with a hydraulic T/O bearing it would be possible...? but would the starter line up with the manual flywheel, etc, etc?
 
starter should line up fine, and clutch clearing the bellhousing shouldnt be an issue either as it can't be much larger than a converter and its shallower. perhaps someone with a motor out of the car can check.
the problem is the shaft length and the lenght of an auto bellhousing which iirc looks to be longer than a manual, equals chopping required of the housing and you would almost certainly want to run a scatter shield with something like that on there.
It would be greatly helpfull if someone that has an auto and manual bellhousing check them out side by side, if i remember next time i'm home i will.
 
maybe, but you're still going to need an adapter plate so that adds further to the length, and then you might run into issues with the shifter location. definitly be interesting to look in to tho, would certainly make fwd swaps into rwd cars a bit more do able
 
[quote:897df23b12]That sucks, since the position of the shifter fore and aft is much nicer for a 7/9 series. Perhaps with the right mounts, the tail position would be ok, even with a 2pc driveshaft (it must work on the camaro (though with a 1pc), eh?)
[/quote:897df23b12]
the camaro is meant to have the shiter angled towards the driver, so to get it pointed straight up again, requires tilting the trans. imagine taking your trans and tilting it 30 deg to fit a camaro, and what that would do. it can be done, just more work than its worth. the mount would be diff than anybody elses, but i guess you could bend it use a really long bolt, and a s$#t load of washers. but the offset of the tailhousing would mean being very very carefull about pinion angles, since not only does it have to "bend" down more than a two piece, but also to the side more
as for the adapter, what i was refering to was before the belhousing, between the eng & bell, not bell and trans like this
55560170.jpg

to go from whiteblock bell bolt pattern, to gm bell bolt pattern.
 
already talked about this... do a search. Already decided the best way do a whiteblock in the states is make a "automatic" type adapter (between the block and bellhousing) on a domestic trans'.

Theres aplace in sweden who does make redblock -> gm trans adapters.

search please.

my driveshaft does nothing wierd at 120+, so Im not going to change it.
 
Doug, sorry about that. It was late at night, and I found the other thread after I posted here. However, I do have in-thread stuff about longer T5s for 7/9 cars.

I've been trying to find a solution for a 7/9 series that does not require _any_ cutting around the shifter hole or a bent set back (very far) shifter.

On the camaro T5, I think the situation is that the bellhousing for a camaro t5 rotates it 17 deg toward the driver. The shifter is thus rotated 17 deg. It sounds like GM set up the mounts on the bottom of the extension housing (or tail housing) to be parallel to the ground, so they are 17 deg off from where they would be on a mustang t5. (please, correct me if any of this is wrong)

So, I think what this means is that you could use the same adapter plate as you would for a mustang, and have a straight up shifter, but you would have to fabricate or modify the crossmember differently. I would expect the output shaft to be in line with the crank, because the input and output shafts should be in line, even in the camaro. the driveshaft would also be a different length, but this doesn't matter for us.

What I'm trying to say is, that the only important difference on a camaro T5 is the mounting to the crossmember, which shouldn't be that hard to fab. Am I nuts? :???:

Also, the input shaft length on a '96 camaro v6 t5 is within half a millimeter of the -93 mustang. Decent ratios are another matter.

Another possibility is the t5 from a 280ZX turbo. these were in 82-83 at least, and they have the shifter in roughly the same place as a camaro, but they are NWC, with 260lb-ft torque rating. Honestly, though, I don't think one would bust open right at 260! they also have nice ratios, _really_ similar to an M90:

http://www.geocities.com/zgarage2001/borg.html

I do not believe these transmissions have any goofy tilt stuff going on like the camaro, but I don't know for sure. However, according to that same page, the input shaft length is different from camaro or mustang T5s. Thus, the input shaft would have to be swapped from some NWC with a 7.18" length.

for a world class setup, one might be able to use a 280ZX tail housing (NWC/WC tail housings interchange) but you would have to use an output shaft from a WC to get the right length. I don't know if the 280ZX and camaro output shafts are the same length, although they ought to be pretty close, by the eyeball.:x: According to this page (under "shifter position"), the 5th gear assembly has to be swapped over as well.

http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com/Trans,Diff/transmission.html

Worth it? I'm not sure. Unless people, er, "change" my perspective :slap: , I would be tempted to either fab a crossmember for a camaro unit or swap the input shaft on a 280Z unit (having a rebuild done at the same time) and just _see_ if I ever break a NWC.

For those of us with "millions" of horsepower in 7/9s :bs:, here's a picture of a Tremec TKO2 (on a Z T5 BH, BTW) with a modified shifter position (if you look closely you can see the box where the shifter normally sits) next to a normal NWC 280ZX T5. Maybe you could do a shifter position mod like that on a ford t5 and skip all the rest of this business. I have an email in to the guy with the TKO2 in the Z to see what that shifter setup is.

tranny.jpg


hmm, I'm sure I got something wrong, but did I provoke some thoughts?

Andy
 
yep, from drivetrain.com:

Nissan 280ZX with Turbo 1982-83
Nissan 300ZX with Turbo 1984-86

<edit>
of course the 300ZX here is the old one, not TT

looks like the 280ZX trans is the one with ratios very close to an M90. The 300ZX has a first gear similar to a mustang, but it still has an OD gear that is reasonable for our 4-cyl turbo cars (.75 vs .63 5th on the mustang, which is IMO too high of a gear for us). Basically, 300ZX trans is probably OK too. Torque rating on both of these is 260lb-ft, _I think_ (I claimed this in my previous post)

more details on the ratios here:

http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/GearRatios.html

However, the high 5th can be swapped on a mustang with a gear from another T5WC, for example a Camaro V6, of course you are basically in for a rebuild at that point.

I would imagine that the dimensions on these two ZX trans are the same, like length and shifter position, but I really have no hard data. :e-shrug:

Stick Turbo ZXes in this year range might also be pretty rare.
</edit>

Andy
 
!!!!!! whats the holding capacity on em? SHIT i know where i can get one for like 100 bucks!
 
Kenny,
He mentioned they are 230-260 I think.

I'm wondering what the real story is on the T5. Are they just going to become the new m46? Can be be beefed or is it the same thing with the case deformation? I'm going to have to put something behind my new motor but I'm not interested in needing a new tranny every few months.

I'm guessing the getrag is tougher? This is the toughest choice of my whole project right now.
 
Kenny, I'm sure this could be debated quite a bit, but here is my assessment:

I believe that M90, WC T5, and Getrag are all roughly the same strength. I'm sure I'll get arguments, but that's my position. T5 gets a bad rep because it's behind V8s all the time, M90 gets a good rep because it's behind 4 cyls all the time. M90 is hard to get, Getrag is expensive to repair. so T5 looks appealing since it's easier to find and repair.

I would say for a 240, use a mustang WC T5 if you're not going to make much more than 300lb-ft, and use a Tremec 3550 set up for a mustang if you're planning on manking between 300 and 350-375lb-ft, which is what they are rated for. 3550 should be more expensive to buy than a T5, but not really any harder to put in. However, if you are really making that much torque, it should be easily justifiable. also, there is a TKO version of the 3550 that is even stronger, but you'd have to have a pretty killer setup to need it behind a 2.3 (or 2.5) turbo four.

As far as weights, T5 WC weighs ~75lb, 3550 weighs around 110, so they are not that heavy.

Andy
 
here's a picture of a camaro T5 mounted straight-up under a FC RX-7 (FC=2nd Gen).

t5monts.JPG


seems to me we 7/9ers could use this trans under our cars with creative crossmember fabrication, as I mentioned previously. Again, input shaft length is basically the same between a mustang T5 and a ~1996 camaro V6 T5 (which is also world class so it has essentially the same torque spec)

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top