$1000 Challenge - Page 4 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Mod and Custom Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2013, 11:10 PM   #46 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 11,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustangChuck View Post
SN95 transmissions are SN95 length, regardless if they are V8 or V6. The earlier transmissions (maybe only 94-95, but possibly upto 98) had a sensor that plugs in where the cable goes. You should be able to remove the sensor and plug in a standard cable. (I haven't tried on mine yet, so I can't vouch for it.)

The 94-04 V6 had the same transmission bolt pattern as the SBF. As for torque ratings, the difference between the V6 and V8 versions varies depending who you talk with. The V6 version is sufficient for most mild street applications.

Chuck
I bought a 97 V6 T5 years ago. It's sitting on my bench in the basement. Yes, the speedometer sensor simply comes out and a regular mechanical cable will go right in. I spoke with a engineer from Tremec. He told me transmission torque ratings depend on who's rating. Tremec, Ford and GM could have 3 different ratings for the same exact trans. The V6 T5 differs from a 5.0 trans by some slightly different gear ratios but basically it has the same 300# capacity as the 5.0 despite it's published 265# rating. I swapped the input shaft.

The reason my T5 is still on my bench instead of my Toploader 4 speed is this. I have driven T5's with 2.73, 3.08 and 3.27 rear axles. I think the 3.27 is a great choice over all. But my main gripe is the wide ratios and especiallly the big jumps between 1&2 and 4&5. You can run a 2.73 very easily because of the 3.35 ( wich is like a close ratio Toploader with 3.89 gears in 1st gear). But 5th with the 2.73 lugs the car on the hiway. Conversely running a 3.73 and lower rear gear, you don't need to use 1st gear any more, 2nd gear is now like 1st gear. You basically end up with 4 usefull gears out of 5 and those 4 gears you have a big spread between 4th and 5th, very similar to the old OD toploader 4 speed in the late 70's to early 80's.

I'm running 2.8's with my wide ratio Toploader and like the combo for my driving. I have 225/60/15's in the back (25.6" tall tire) I don't have any issues starting from a stop plus it runs real nice at 70 MPH. It doesn't lug or scream and I'm not constantly shifting in and out of OD going up hills.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!


Last edited by Huskinhano; 01-14-2013 at 11:33 PM.
Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-15-2013, 09:05 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default Cable Clutch

For the cable clutch, does anyone have a good reason to use a fully rounded quadrant?? I think they're neat looking and all, but the only reason I can see is to keep your cable pulling at the same height through the housing end (although that's almost a moot point if you split the difference... 0.070" ). Travel's almost the same!

__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)


Last edited by yellowoctupus; 01-23-2013 at 04:53 PM.
yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2013, 08:43 AM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 1,051
Default

I think the advantage is leverage.
__________________
Fitting 315's on the '66
Z06killinsbf is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2013, 08:13 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 11,418
Default

The round quadrant pulls the cable in a linear motion and makes the operation of the clutch much smoother and even. Think of a piston going up and down. The crank turns at the same rate but since the angle of the connecting rod to the crank changes as the crank rotates, so does the speed at which the connecting rod to the angle change. The round quadrant is consistant to rotation. This is also the problem with mechanical clutch linkage and how they feel, easy then hard becaus of rate change.
Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-16-2013, 09:43 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

I understand the mechanical difference between the quadrant and the non quadrant styles, and yes, with higher angular changes I certainly agree the quadrant would be necessary, in order to keep the force linear. (Although I'm pretty sure pressure plate diaphragm springs don't follow the simple F=kx equation, even if you assume the clutch release arm doesn't change angle through it's travel. )

With the above calculation of drop through the non quadrant linkage of 0.14" (post #47) it means the leverage arm now starts at 1.61", goes to 1.75", then ends back up at 1.61", for a peak change of 8%. Do you guys think that 8% is enough that it's noticeable?

Does anyone have one of the non quadrant style cable clutch kits? I am willing to bet they don't have as long of a fulcurm as is necessary. Only the MS quadrant kit talks about having to dent in the cowl for clearance. That's telling me other kits aren't long/tall enough for a stock Fox/SN95 clutch feel. Interestingly, it may also mean they aren't pulling quite far enough too (maybe enough to release the clutch, but not the full 1.75" from the factory (Fox/SN95)).

The measurement needed from a non quadrant kit would be either:

A: Installed, distance from where the cable PIVOTS to the clutch pedal pivot

or

B: Uninstalled, distance from where the cable pivots to where it welds to the clutch arm top surface (later adding distance from clutch arm top
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-20-2013, 11:45 PM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default Measurement Needed

Can anyone tell me how much travel a stock '65 gas pedal should have? I'm setting up a throttle cable and now realize I have no idea how far they should move, or at what height relative to the brake pedal it would be to start!

Any help would be greatly appreciated, before I start guessing!
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-22-2013, 09:29 PM   #52 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

So.....with those answers left kinda open (sorry, I work fast when my mind's to it) I just winged it.

I setup the clutch cable so it wouldn't have any crazy bends or be near the headers etc. It's not the most pleasing to the eye, aesthetics aside however, it works so well! I can't quite push the pedal down with two fingers, but I can with my thumb . I get almost exactly 1.75" of travel too, which was what I was shooting for. I welded on an old motorcycle highway peg mount plate to the top of my clutch pedal, and put a heim joint to a threaded rod on that, which in turn pulls the clutch cable. I'm not sure if I have a picture of the cable yet, but I designed up all these complex cable puller gizmos and finally just welded a new threaded boss into the original cable end. I kept the heat as low as possible on the cable, and it all looks good, no discoloration at all. I will however do the same thing to a spare cable JUST IN CASE, as I hate not having off the shelf parts.





Some pretty serious denting happened here. I tried the block of wood/jack method, but it didn't do what I was looking for. BFH (ballpeen) did the trick though.


The linkage to cable tube is just tacked on right now on the shock tower perch.

So...I have a problem when I close the hood. It appears my hood hinge pivots are loose enough to permit the spring to come over and rub on my nice clutch linkage. I'm not 100% sure how to fix it yet, but I've got time and bigger fish to fry in the meantime.


Did the throttle pedal too. Guessed at 2.5-2.75" of pedal travel, and it feels pretty good installed. Threaded a piece of 3/16" welding rod with 10-24 threads and cut an old ball style throttle link in half, and put them together. I took the end of the original 6cyl throttle linkage and welded it together, so now when you bottom the pedal, you're not bottoming into the carpet, wearing a hole there, and not pulling excessively on the throttle shaft, but rather against the firewall. I may put a little bumper there later, but it seems ok for now. I also made an adapter plate to get the throttle pull to start and finish at roughly the same angles from center. (ie, 25 on both sides of vertical, instead of from 0-50 as it was at one of the existing holes.)


I got some Duraspark II setup parts from the junkyard the other day too (they had another 50% off week, AWESOME). I now have my original Duraspark III with the large cap which I'll save for an oil pump primer or something, one out of a 1979 E-100 which has the small distributor cap and one out of a 1984 F-150 with the large cap. The two large caps I have look similar, but the DSIII one has these weird conduction bars inside it which makes the spark jump twice inside the cap it looks like? I'll take a picture later. It's pretty weird. I can only think it helps keep plug wires from being all crossed over each other. Both DSII distributors were good, I got the '79 DS module, wired it up on my workbench and wired up all 8plugs with individual grounds and it works great. Spin the shaft and it looks like one of those Christmas tree light sequencers.

Put some accessories back on (and my rusty, crappy leaking water pump) to check to see if I needed any new brackets, but I think these will work out ok. I have to do something about tensioning the PS pump/ water pump,as the belt no longer runs over the AC and the top tensioner, but I think I can re-use the top tensioner down below somewhere and make it all happy. I'm not sure why I hear you have to have a '69 alternator bracket as it's the only year they were made, but maybe it's for a different alternator, or if you don't want to grind the ears off the airpump mount like I'm going to do.

__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-22-2013, 10:09 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 11,418
Default

I like the ideal of using the shock tower vs the firewall. My feeling is that there would be too much flexing. Nice job.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!

Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-22-2013, 10:33 PM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
I like the ideal of using the shock tower vs the firewall. My feeling is that there would be too much flexing. Nice job.
Thanks. I don't see the shock tower flex one little bit.

I think I'll end up with a brake booster to shock tower brace too. The firewall is made out of really wimpy material and is barely supported. I think the dash is the main structural member there.
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-23-2013, 04:50 PM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

So, I figured out the difference between the two 'large cap' distributors I have. One is buttonless. Instead of taking the spark down the center post, through the top of the rotor via a button, then sparking to the closest cap post, this one takes the spark down the center post, sparks to the rotor, then sparks over to the appropriate cap post. Wacky. (I think they're the same diameter though, even though this picture makes the right one look bigger...)


Oh, and here's a picture of my threaded cable piece.


I also had to shorten my throttle linkage about 2" as when it swept through it's arc, it went up higher and would hit my air cleaner. Not too exciting though, so no picture.
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-23-2013, 05:01 PM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
tarafied1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Western KY
Posts: 245
Default

looking good
__________________
My wife's name is TARA so I am the TARA-fied 1!
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/63634_4358514046617_1881987486_n.jpg
67 Hardtop, 429 Big block, 9" rear, 4 wheel disc brakes...
tarafied1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-25-2013, 12:50 AM   #57 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

OH NO, What's that doing there?? Or is it some sort of Steve Martin arrow through the head style trickery??



No trickery here. Always did wonder what that supposed cardboard tube on the inside of aluminum driveshafts looked like.



Had to punch out the little ball bearing plug to get the live center in my lathe to seat on the taper.



FYI.



After I lined it up (as close as I could, it kept pulling out of line when I would tack weld it), I turned down the weld to make sure I didn't have too much filler sticking up past the surface. All in all, it came out pretty well. Only time will tell if it holds up at all (I'm assuming they normally heat treat these things after welding at the factory, which I am not planning on doing), or if it's even close to being balanced. Worse come to worse I just blew 15 fat ones and like three hours doing the work.


Got the 77 Ranchero front sump oil pan finished up. I chopped a big 'ol rectangle out of the 82 Bronco pan and welded er up! A little bit of a pain with one pan being flat and the other ridged, but not the end of the world.



Just for reference, this is the booster I got out of that 97 V6 Stang. Notice it has a 'drooping' push rod. It actually helps line it up better than some of the earlier V6 boosters with their straight push rods. (EDIT: Now that everything's all bolted up nice and tight, I'm not sure it actually helps, but it does work.)



Also had to weld up these two (egr ports??). They had a tube connecting to each other (one big assembly) and they mount to the firewall end of both heads. I just dropped a bolt in the original tube hole, but it was a PITA to weld up because it's cast iron, the tube inside is steel and it was originally braized in place. And I'm out of braizing rod so I just tig'ed it in place. Grr. Should hold up to the 2-3psi of backpressure.



And last but not least, this is the rack that I got a while back for the rnp steering out of a 92 Grand Am. I have the boots and all too, they're on my workbench.



I think I can flip my clutch heim joint to the other side without running into the booster below, thus solving two problems. One, it will move the pull rod away from the hood hinge spring. Two, it will allow me to remove the pull rod from the clutch pedal, which I currently have to remove as an entire assembly (pull rod + pedal assembly) to get the booster in or out.
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)


Last edited by yellowoctupus; 02-07-2013 at 06:54 PM.
yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-25-2013, 12:27 PM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
tarafied1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Western KY
Posts: 245
Default

can't wait to see your progress....
__________________
My wife's name is TARA so I am the TARA-fied 1!
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/63634_4358514046617_1881987486_n.jpg
67 Hardtop, 429 Big block, 9" rear, 4 wheel disc brakes...
tarafied1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-26-2013, 06:47 AM   #59 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Piti, Guam
Posts: 75
Default

If you drew a line down the whole tube, cut it to length then welded it back up in line there would probably be no vibration.....
What size and brand of lathe are you using?
__________________
1970 Mustang coupe.
347 with world products heads, roller cam, roller rockers, Cal custom finned valve covers, performer RPM intake and a holley carb.
Hooker headers, jegs 2.5 exhaust.
C4 trans with a shift kit and PAW converter
http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y12.../70%20mustang/
Has jegs drag star knock offs now..... More to come when i get home!
1970_347 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-26-2013, 11:39 AM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
yellowoctupus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Prunedale, CA
Posts: 182
Default

Yep, definitely drew some lines on there first. I laid a piece of angle iron to use as my straight edge to make sure the lines were parallel with the center axis.

I have an older South Bend lathe, I think it's an 8" or something. It's been a while since I measured it though. It wasn't nearly long enough though, and my steady rest wasn't large enough to go around this big aluminum tube, so I made a little two roller bearing support that the ds just rode on top of on the far end of the lathe. I wasn't the happiest about it, but I ran the lathe real slow and it came out ok, never jumped off the bearings etc.
__________________
1965 Coupe, 351w + T5 -------- 1978 280z, 4.6 SOHC + T45
Build Post (Here on VMF) ---- Build Post (On HybridZ)

yellowoctupus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.