B&C Mustang wrote:
> t5 facts1 1986 mustang 5.0 265 torque
>
> 1992 1993 5.0 300 torque
> z rated t5 330 torque
> also top loader 427 was large spline
B&C,
I won't dispute your facts, they are correct. However, the inference is that
since the 427 had a large input spline shaft, the internal gears and parts were
equally larger, and of greater capability.
This is not correct. ONLY the input shaft was larger. All internal parts were
identical. The 289/302 performance motors do not break the input shaft, but the
gearbox internals. The T-5, TREMEC and the Top Loader for the small blocks all
have the same input shaft diameter, therefore - if the materials are not
inferior,
should have the same torque capability. Yet this is NOT so, and not where they
fail. Remember that the various torque ratings of the T-5 are all with the same
input shaft.
The TREMEC is rated at 400 ft.-lbs., and they still break. Now I can't find a
technical reference on ratings of older gearboxes, doesn't appear they reported
them in the early days. BUT, the fact remains, they stand up to anything you
can
put to them, and the others don't.
While I don't have a ready source I know of for the tail stock, I do know where
the Tiger mainshaft can be obtained, if someone needs to convert another Top
Loader.
The length of the Tiger transmission, I seem to recall, is an inch longer than
the
'65 Mustang. I think it was 24.5 vs 25.5 inches. But this may be a flawed
memory. I can't find my Dan Williams manual, but someone out there has it.
I'll
look around later.
Steve
--
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >
B9472289 < important in your life >
< and don't let it get away!>
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/__/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/
_/_/_/
|