Re: [AMC-list] calponycar adapter to replace the T-96 with T-5...

[tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

" From: Matt Haas <mhaas@xxxxxxx>
"
" I would guess that it will support it's own weight okay but what happens
" when you start shifting like a mad man?

That was my line of worry, but I forgot to consider that the entire tail
section of the T5 is filled with air (OK output shaft) so there's not much
mass there. The T-96 OD unit is heavy and danging out in space.

And I didn't want to make it a 6-point mount, that sounds like asking for
complex trouble and a lot of fabrication hassles.



On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 18:53, Sandwich Maker <adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> maybe, but the rear mount setup ordinarily supports not only the trans
> but also part of the engine, which weighs about 7x the t5.  if the
> tranny is strong enough for that...  with the quad-mount setup the t5
> is only supporting itself.
>

Right, and in fact, in "tri-poise" configuration, the rear tip of the trans
has engine+trans mass bouncing on it (though with a lot of leverage). In the
old 4-point mount, the trans dangles.

anecdote - i talked to a mustang racer at the scca regionals a couple
>
 of years ago.  he had a really built 302 making about 600 hp [he said]
> and was having problems with his t5 - until he realized his stock
> aluminum bell was flexing at his power level and switched to a steel
> one.
>

Yeah, and there's some off-axis torsion going on at the front U-joint, but
seriously, with a 195.6 OHV it's academic. The LAST thing I'm worrying about
is the tail of the trans lurching due to torque transmitted through the
rear! Even 2X that torque seems uninteresting.



I think this is problem is a non-starter. Tomorrow I'll call CalPony and ask
if that's their(MustangDepot)  adapter. By then I'll have studied what I
have and figure out the thickness problem, which is really all that's left
for big mysteries. (Leaving 100,000 medium to small ones, but those you
figure out on the bench/side of the road.)

The "thickness problem" is that the pre-94 T5's input shafts are almost the
same length (7.18 or 7.41) as the T-96 (7.0). The 94-up is 7.85. I almost
certainly need the 94-up trans and to mill the adapter if indeed everyone's
talking about SHAFT LENGTH instead of BELLHOUSING DEPTH.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20091021/34e3e7ea/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com