Re: Not all T5s are created Equal, The right ones Are...............

[<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe,
 83-84 Mustang V-8 T-5= NON world Class.
82-87 Camaro V-8= NON world Class.
85 began World Class T-5 in Mustang V-8
88 began World Class T-5 in Camaro V-8
The clusters and 1-2&3rd gears from Camaro Non world class should be the same as the AMC in interchange, The only way to find out for sure is to get my hands on one! I know Camaro uses the wrong input, but the rebuild kits are the same for most all Non World Class trans, I've checked the parts books.
With A 84-85 Mustang V-8 Trans I can even use the input shaft if needed, different pilot bearing I think.
My American Runs a 91 Wrangler EFI system on  a 95 4.0L engine. i'm not concerend about the non world class status. I believe that if you do a quick web search you will see that indeed the torque rating of World Class transmissions remained at 265 till 1990.
 
Mark Price
mprice@xxxxxxxxxx
Morgantown, WV
69 AMC rambler, 4.0L, EFI, 5 speed 
65 Ambassador Conv, 327 AUTO, Basketcase
01 S-10 CREWCRAP 4X4



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Joe Wyatt" <jwyatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: mail-From-mprice-westco.net@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date:  Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:08:45 -0600

>Mark, based in the info that you posted, your "1984 and T-5 in a HO Mustang" 
>I assume was a V-8,  would have had a WC T-5, and based on the 100,000 mile 
>design (conservative/overkill) you had 10,000 plus miles to go.  Most of my 
>information comes from old Car Craft & Hot Rod articles, as we know from Car 
>Crafts articles on the AMC 401, they can make errors sometimes.  All my 
>information states that Ford made enhancements to the WC T-5 in their 1985 
>Mustangs to help correct the weak points of the T-5 for the HO Mustang (GM 
>did not change till 1988).
>
>I do not know when the first WC T-5s were made, but I'm looking, If any one 
>has the May 1992 Car Craft article there was a casting number chart  (T-5 
>identifying numbers and dates for all T-5 WC variants produced to that date) 
>with the article, I don't have it but would like a 
>copy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
>
>Like wise I got the 305 lbs from the May 1992 issue of Car Craft .
>
>The first NWC T-5s were light weight and developed for fuel-efficiently.  As 
>the power V-8s were rediscovered,  BW needed to beef up the T-5 so the WC 
>T-5 was developed to meet increasing engine torque levels.  Then there's the 
>T-56, BWs Heavy-Duty six-speed (that's another post).
>
>What I see here is if you would like the strongest T-5 to insure durability 
>behind a 360, 390, or 401 go with the WC T-5, if your running the smaller 
>engines go with either one, if you not heavy footed.
>
>This is the same with the 71 and earlier AMC BW autos,  304's and smaller 
>used the Aluminum housing, larger engines used the steel case.  I have one 
>of each in my garage just in case I wish to place my 71 Javelin back to 
>stock......
>
>As I play with my 360 and don't try to kill it I run a 904 in it, and it 
>came from a 74 Javelin 6, but because my son can't keep tires on his car or 
>truck I helped him put the heaver 727 in his, and hope it doesn't leave 
>parts some where on the road.
>
>Reminds me of his brother 4 years ago when he called me and asked me to 
>bring the trailer to get him, his brother and his car, when I got there my 
>older son had his hands cupped with gears in them, that they had picked up 
>off the road way, he asked "Can we reuse them".  My comments were "if the 
>### things fell out they sure aren't going back in..................."  I 
>cooled off some time latter.  Boys and our toys......
>
>Joe W...........
>