Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

trans q?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 5, 2007 | 04:04 AM
  #1  
67fastbak's Avatar
67fastbak
Thread Starter
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 93
Default trans q?

i have a 67 fb w/ a 289 2v with a automatic trans and i want to change it to a be a manual i have the pedal assembly and a borg warner t-10 trans from another car would this tranny would well in my car or should i look for like a tremec five speed instead
Old Mar 5, 2007 | 10:56 AM
  #2  
boeing747arowair's Avatar
boeing747arowair
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 540
From: Miami, Florida
Default RE: trans q?

i believe there is also a wealth of info in the FAQ section. check it out and good luck. i feel ur pain; there is no fun in driving a auto mustang
Old Mar 5, 2007 | 02:10 PM
  #3  
gothand's Avatar
gothand
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,287
From: North Fulton, GA
Default RE: trans q?

Go with the 5-speed. It is lighter, smoother, overdrive (duh) and lower geared.
Old Mar 5, 2007 | 04:57 PM
  #4  
Norm Peterson's Avatar
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
Default RE: trans q?

ORIGINAL: boeing747arowair

i believe there is also a wealth of info in the FAQ section. check it out and good luck. i feel ur pain; there is no fun in driving a auto mustang
If you really like to drive (as opposed to merely keeping the car pointed somewhere between the ditches), there's not much fun driving an automatic anything.

67 - if you do decide on the Tremec, you will get spoiled by the light shift action that comes from having all of the linkage internal to the tranny case and supported on bushings of real metal. Trust me on this.

I also think you'd be happiest matching a 3550 with an axle ratio somewhere in the3.7-ish range. That isn't so short that 1st would feel like a "wasted" gear, but it's not so tall that you can't reasonably use 5th on a moderate-speed non-Interstate road with a small-displacement engine either,and you shouldn't find yourselfdownshifting for hills. On edit, 3.70's with that 0.68 OD 5th is 2.52, which should be tall enough for relaxed cruising.


Norm
Old Mar 6, 2007 | 12:00 AM
  #5  
67fastbak's Avatar
67fastbak
Thread Starter
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 93
Default RE: trans q?

ORIGINAL: Norm Peterson
there's not much fun driving an automatic anything.
Norm
my thoughts exactly! im thinking of going with a t-5 and a hydralic clutch kit
Old Mar 7, 2007 | 05:25 PM
  #6  
67fastbak's Avatar
67fastbak
Thread Starter
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 93
Default RE: trans q?

will the ford racing t5 work cause it says 79 to 95 years
Old Mar 12, 2007 | 09:17 AM
  #7  
Norm Peterson's Avatar
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
Default RE: trans q?

Fitting any manual tranny up will require checking and matching the same things - pilot bushing (original auto tranny cars' engines may not have one, but hopefully the crank has a recess to accept one), bellhousing length and bolt patterns, tranny crossmember, driveshaft length, shifter location, clutch linkage, clutch disc spline count, front U-joint, etc.


Norm
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Matt's 95 Stang
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
2
Oct 5, 2015 07:16 AM
guitarman376
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
0
Sep 30, 2015 05:54 PM
wraith777
General Tech
1
Sep 28, 2015 10:49 AM
2poor4u2
V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs
1
Sep 26, 2015 11:08 AM
97SN95GT
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
4
Sep 13, 2015 09:45 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.