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

[tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:24, Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> To a degree, the thicker the adapter the easier it will be to make. And
> that leaves you more room to manipulate the input shaft. For 1/4" I'd use a
> steel plate, anything 3/8" or more aluminum.
>

I agree 100%. I'm currently thinking NO adapter is the way to go, the 7.18
input shaft, pay real money for a competent centering-hole bore job, then
fabricate attachment to the bell. I can do that part.



> The V-6 trans isn't highly sought after -- should be about the same price
> as the four cylinder. So the longer shaft models might be around the same
> price as the short shaft four cylinder models.
>

Ahh, Rambler Mentality applied! I'm at the point that I need parts to stare
at -- I'm gonna visit a Mustang place in North Hollywood Monday (wish me
luck) and see if they have one I can eyeball with my bell.

It's a certainty that it can be made to go onto the bell with one of the
three models. Then it's tunnel clearance as the next problem, and almost
certainly that means chopping out the top of the tunnel. I'm less than happy
with that idea (there goes my new carpeting, and the console probably too).




I agree on the OD ratios. While 0.68 is usable, the steeper ratio would be
> much better.


I dunno. I've said before, and still think, that given the big chunks that
make up this car -- 195.6OHV, T96+OD, the light 100" chassis -- overall
gearing is *perfect*. It's a great compromise for all considerations.
60mph=2050rpm right at the sweet spot. 60 - 80mph is competent, not quick,
but not embarrassing. 0 - 40mph is where it's slowest in practical terms,
and half of that is the SLOW SHIFTING, TOO-BROAD T-96. A "real" transmission
would make this car much quicker.

There is no doubt it will do 90 mph without difficulty, though at 80 it's a
bit floaty. At redline (4500rpm) it would be 131mph (yeah right). But as a
rude guess I bet you could push it to 110mph (3700 rpm) but I'm certain I'll
never find out and without an airdam or something it would be very scary and
dangerous if it even had the torque to push a drag coeff.1.0 car to such
speeds! It's a brick!

The current OD is 0.7, a big jump (30%) from 3rd, but 3rd+OD is highway
perfect. Keeping the same overall final top ratio but adding more gears
below would be the solution.

What I'm planning is a second set of wheels+tires for fun driving. That's
cheapest overall, and lets me drop the tire diameter to gain lower speed
performance at the expense of mileage and top end for a fun weekend or two
or three a year. That's what I did autocrossing. A good set of tires would
last 2, 3 years like that too.



I forgot to say, it's obvious to me now that more power in this car (turbo,
whatever) would be stupid without a transmission upgrade. Other than
construction hassles, and aesthetic lack of Twin Stick, there's NO downside
to having a good transmission!

Thanks for the additional links. I'm making a T5 'notes' webpage and I'll
add it.




 A 3.31 gear might be okay with a 0.83-0.86 OD gear, but with the 2.86 you'd
> have a great full synchro four speed trans. L-head cars used lower gears --
> 3.31 for standard and auto three speeds, 3.78 for OD (in 61 -- earlier cars
> used 4.11 standard with L-head). 3.78 was optional for 3.31 cars, 4.11 was
> optional for OD cars. I've seen as many 4.11 as 3.78 OD Americans from
> 58-63. That gives you a clue as to where to look for axles if you do decide
> to change later.
>

Going by my spreadsheet (computers never lie, do they?) cross-checked by
experience:

3.77 axle: use T5 OD 0.7, 26" tires (60=2050rpm)
3.31 axle: use T5 OD 0.83, 26" tires (60=2050rpm)
2.87 axle: use T5 OD 0.83, 23" tires (60=2100rpm)

Actually the more common axles would be better with the .83/.86 OD with
modern tire sizes; with the 3.77 axle you really need tall tires to get
highway speeds and it's impossible to buy sticky tires that big.


I wouldn't worry about 50 series or higher tires, maybe not as low as 45.
> The tires just won't have as much give or as much space to give in, so pot
> holes and curbs would be a problem. I bet even 45 series radials have as
> much give as the old tall sidewall bias ply tires our Ramblers came
> with/were designed for!!
>

That's probably true! If I had more money I'd just experiment, but when I
buy tires I'll have to live with the results (same with other hacks) so I
gotta plan ahead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20091024/e1b034d4/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com