Re: [AMC-List] M-35/T-96 trans options

[Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>]

I would be more concerned with the stress on the rubber cushions than
the trans itself. The small BW six trannies were aluminum and fared
well with the TT. The tailshaft housing is no stronger than the open
drive models. In fact, they are exactly the same except for the flange
as far as I can tell. Could be a different alloy or a little thicker
casting, but I don't think so. The TT cars have arms with thin rubber
bushings on the trans crossmember to limit fore and aft movement,
taking some strain off the cushions. The enine and trans mount cushions 
still wear out faster on a TT car though. 

The double U-joint CV is called a "Double Cardan" CV joint. 4x4 trucks
use them for high angle lifts. The centering mechanism is different
enough from the old style (I haven't taken one apart -- might just be
different sized pin/springs, might be totally different design) that
the parts won't interchange. But a driveshaft shop that caters to 4x4
customers can install one of these in place of the old one easy enough. 
A standard T-10 yoke will fit one of the new style joints, and that's
what all the cast iron BW trannys used. The old style joint has a yoke
that won't work with a standard driveshaft. The u-joints are standard,
but the yokes on that thing are vastly different. 

-----------------------------------------------
On August 22, 2006 andrew hay wrote:

> " From: <francis.swygert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> "
> " I, and a few others, have seriously considered some kind of adapter 
or
> " bracket to allow use of a torque tube with a newer trans. You'd
think it
> " would be simple enough, but the rear axle actually pushes the tube
to
> " make the car move. A bracket on the crossmember sounds good, but
the
> " engine is on rubber mounts and you can't have movement between the
TT
> " and engine. AMCs solution was to rubber mount the trans crossmember 
as
> " well, but there is still semi-rigid link between the engine and TT. 
So
> " the TT has to be mounted to the trans itself. This puts more stress 
on
> " the engine and trans mount, and newer ones weren't designed for
fore and
> " aft stresses. So it really isn't practical.
> 
> i'll bet iron cased trannies like the ford toploader would hold up
> fine, but afaik all the 5sp [and 6sp] have aluminum cases.  even the
> toploader went aluminum about '80.
> 
> " The only problem with V-8 shafts is the CV joint on 63-66 models.
Those
> " are the only years that joint was used, and it was only used by
one
> " other company -- Lincoln. The joint nor repair parts are no longer
made.
> 
> i have to comment here.  i have a lincoln ['67], and their cv joint
is
> just two u-joints back-to-back.  the joints themselves are common
and
> available, but the coupler - which includes centering springs - is
the
> missing piece.  i had to score a '68 driveshaft from a junkyard when
> my cv couplers went bad.
>
________________________________________________________________________

> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have
seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none
thought


=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist

_______________________________________________
AMC-List mailing list
AMC-List@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

or go to http://www.amc-list.com