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

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
" 
" 
" 
" Actually, with Rambler Mentality ever present, the 4cyl trans is probably
" cheaper and an easier junkyard find, since "everyone" wants the V8 jobs, but
" 5th OD isn't good. Or 94-up, both are such that the adapter/spacer is
" practical.

the 4-cyls are wide geared, with 4.03 [sound familiar?] or 3.97 1st.
the svo turbo t-bird had a 3.50 1st but you're not likely to find one
of them.  they come with a short 0.79-0.85 5th, which is almost wasted
on a gearing this wide.  ratio steps on the 3.97 tranny are .59 .62
.68; .72 for 5th is about perfect, and btw it is available from ttc.

" > i personally think something around 0.78 would be perfectly spaced,
" > but better to go short than long unless you have hp to burn.
" 
" 
" With 26" tires, the T96's .70 is fine, it could even be a bit steeper, so
" .68 would be good. I've got a 3.77 axle. My spreadsheet says that the .83 5th
" would be GREAT! with the auto trans axle, what's that, 3.3?  But things can
" always be "better"... I'm using what I have, I'm not chasing axles down.

i was thinking only with respect to the ratio steps in the 300 ft-lb
['90-up v8] 3.35 tranny, which are .59 .69 .75; .78 is just about on
the curve, but .83 is closer to right than .68 or even .72.  for the
265 ft-lb ['89-down and '94-up v6], the steps are .58 .69 .78 and .83
looks even better.

" But the tallest I *think* I can fit in this
" car -- with custom 16" steel wheels -- is 2225/50-16's.

them's pretty big tires...

Specification  Sidewall  Radius  Diameter  Circumference  Revs/Mile  Difference
2225/50-16       43.8in  51.8in   103.6in        325.5in        195        0.0%

;^>

" I'm wary of low profile tires. They suck on old cars (though often look
" great).

yeah; they're fine on the back but front end roll geometry is
completely opposite to what low profiles want - tires are set to lean
-more- into a roll instead of staying more vertical.

" > big problem for the t5 retainer bolts too - it has to be thick enough
" > to clear them.  if you use panhead bolts and cut divots clear through
" > the adapter to clear their heads, you're down to what for minimum?
" > 1/4"?
" 
" Most of these adapters use flat head countersunk allen socket screws. .41"
" or .78" would be an OK thickness for them.

i was thinking of the bolts that hold the bearing retainer on the t5,
not the adapter plate bolts.  they probably won't fit inside the 4.25"
bellhousing hole, so the t5 can't get any closer to the bell than when
their heads touch its surface.  figuring 1/8" for the thickness of the
retainer flange where the bolts are and 1/8" [or less] for low profile
heads gives 1/4".

i'd forgotten the min thk the 1/2-20 flat head mounting bolts would
need.

" > how about a plate for the flywheel to move the clutch closer to the
" > tranny, if there's clearance for it?
" 
" The clutch and flywheel are not the problem (yet...), but sticking the input
" shaft into the end of the crank.

i've heard of tranny-swap pilot bushings that actually projected out
from the crank...  if the crank hole is generous you could make a
steel gadget that stuck out and carried a thinnish bronze bushing in
it.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com