TigersUnited EDITORS NOTE:

This section has not been organized and edited at this point.
There are over 300 pages of collected List E-Mails to be edited and coded, and we did not want to hold up the TigersUnited Site release until everything was 100%. Consequently, some sections are NOT in the shape we finally intend.

If our search engine is operable, you will be able to find any specific information you will need. These pages will be replaced with edit sections, with proper Table of Contents and hot-links, as the become available from our overloaded section editors.

Please bear with us on these 'roll-out' challenges.

These entries were collected, over a three year period, for my personal use, they reflect my own choices as to what I kept for my possible future needs. My name appears far too often due to this fact. Please accept the value it may contain, in spite of what might appear to be too many repetitions of my own questions and answers.

Steve L

The comments contained herein are the sole opinions of the contributors, and should be used with appropriate consideration of possible errors of omission, commission, or lack of sufficient information.

Section Editor - AWAITING VOLUNTEER TO ORGANIZE AND COMBINE.

Section E - Gearbox



Subject:
Re: "Close" and "Wide" Ratios Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 23:09:22 -0400
From: Jim Parent<76276.1555@compuserve.com>
To: Steven Laifman
CC: Myself, Jim Parent

Steve, Thanks for the offer on your spreadsheet but that's OK. I use a simulation program called Shiftmaster along with my own timing on my car. Actual trials have been within about 5% of the predicted values but wheelspin is a big problem. Shiftmaster predicts that the shift points at 5K would be close ratio 1-2>42.76 mph; 2-3>56.37mph; and 3-4>73.86mph. wide ratio 1-2>34.35mph; 2-3>49.38mph; and 3-4>70.06 The time to shifts are: close ratio 7.10 seconds, 9.22 seconds, and 12.01 seconds wide ratio 5.67 seconds, 7.98 sceonds, and 11.23 seconds Shift drops are: 1-2> 4652rpm; 2-3> 4652rpm; and 3-4>4652rpm for both close and wide ratios. That assumes, of course, that all three shifts take the same time in both gear ratios (.25 seconds in this case). That is without power shifting. It seems to me that rpm drop is a function of time to shift not gear ratio. That does not account for any bog that may occur after gear engagement. This program calculates the 5.90 x13 loaded diameter at 21.7" I run 185's x 13 (80) which results in a loaded diameter of 23.8" (calculated). Got any suggestions for economical wheels and bigger tires?

Regards, Jim

Subject:
Clutch Replacement
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 17:33:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: jhankins@ix.netcom.com
To: tigers@autox.team.net

The deed is done! Everything is back together and working fine. I only have 15 or twenty unidentified parts left over, so I consider the effort a success! I replaced the flywheel, clutch, clutch master and slave cylinders, and the appropriate bearings and seals. I did it without removing the engine, but I'm not sure that it was any easier that way. It sure was a struggle getting everything back in to place and lined up! The only way I could figure out to do it was to:
1. Remove the drive shaft.
2. disconnect the transmission from the bell housing and slide it back into the tunnel.
3. Disconnect the bell housing. (Required drilling two holes in the tunnel. I'll provide the exact measurements to anyone who wants them.)
4. Drop the front of the transmission and the back of the bell housing down until the transmission input shaft clears the back of the bell housing, allowing the bell housing to be removed. The transmission then can be slid down, forward, and out. (It's heavy!!!!).
5. It goes back in the same way, but it ain't as easy as it sounds.
While I could manhandle the transmission out, there's no way to manhandle it back in. I used a transmission jack (on wheels) and strapped the transmission to it with ratchet straps. It took several hours and several tries for two of us to get everything lined up right (clutch lever, throw-owt bearing, splines, pilot bearing, etc.), but it finally slipped together like a watch! Obviously, I've left out a lot of details, such as removing the shifter and linkage, the cross member, the speedo cable etc. I should also point out that it took two of us approximately 20 hours to get everything done. But I'm here to testify thatit is possible! For those who are interested, I got the clutch, flywheel, etc. from Centerforce. Here are the parts numbers and retail prices: Flywheel/ring gear 700220 $293.95 Clutch (Centerforce I) CF360030 $161.95 Pressure Plate 280490 $102.95 T.O. Bearing N-1439 $44.95 you should be able to beat these prices without a great deal of trouble! I'm very pleased with the centerforce clutch. It requires substantially less pedal effort, but is quite solid and very smooth.

Joe

Subject:
Re: Gear Shift Lever Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:00:00 -0700
From: Keith Ballard
To: James Barrett
CC: tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1

James...great article on the repair of the shift lever. I have converted quite a few Mustang levers to the early short shifter version and I found it easier to buy a replace the cable than try to use the old one. Any good bike shop has a collection of hand brake replacement cables and the extra length give you a better grip when brazing the assembly together.

keith ballard

James Barrett wrote:
> Tiger Folks,
> Tonight I found out a lot about the stock Tiger gear shift lever.
> I had broken the reverse finger grip with my knee when I was under the dash
> last year. I had another longer shift lever from a Mustang with a good
> finger grip. So I decided to swap the grips .
>
> First remove the shift lever by removing two bolts with a 1/2" socket. Remove
> the two spring loaded buttons from the sides of the lever. They are only secured
> with dirt and grease.
>
> I made a tool to remove the knobs. 1/4" plate with a 1/2" slotted
> hole and two small bolts located 3/4" apart on the centerline of the 1/2' hole.
> The bolts were ground down to 1/16" for 3/8". I promply twisted off two
> sets of screws in the attempts to loosen the round chromed jam nut from the
> black plastic knob. Apparently I needed tough tool steel for the pins which
> I don't have.
> I then wrapped one layer of 120 grit wet/dry paper around the plastic
> knob and clamped it as tight as I could with a SS worm gear hose clamp. A pair
> of channel locks were then used to unscrew the knobs with no damage.
> There was a coil spring in the hole under the knob on the Mustang
> lever, but none on the Tiger II shifter. The Tiger II lever is fairly
> streight while the Mustang lever is longer with two big bends in the lever.
>
> I clamped the reverse lockout peg with vice grips and used a torch to melt
> the brass securing the cable to the lockout peg. The things flew apart when
> the cable came loose. There was another coil spring 2" long by 9/16" under the
> lockout peg. There was also a 3/8" od, 1/8" id washer on the top side of the
> spring to keep the spring from sliding up the inside of the gear shift lever.
>
> The "cable" is a solid pull wire. .042 for the Tiger and .052 on the Mustang.
> There is a 1/2" long cylinder with a taper on the down side that is brased
> to the wire above the finger grip. The wire passes through the finger grip.
> You have to remove the wire via the knob end to be able to remove the
> finger grip.
>
> To reassemble, slide the finger grip through the lever and pass the wire
> through the hole in the finger grip. ( only takes 10 or 12 tries).
> Place a 1/4" rod about 4 inches long vertically in a vice and support
> the shift lever upside down on the rod. This holds the pull wire in
> temporally. Thread the 3/8" washer over the wire from the bottom of the
> lever. Drop in the
> spring on the washer and thread the end of the wire through the reverse
> lockout pin. Clamp a scrap steel piece with vice grips to the flat area of
> the shift lever mounting ears overlapping the end of the lockout lever,
> but not covering the area needing to be brased. This is to hold the
> lockout lever with the spring compressed. Do not try to wire the lockout down
> like I tried at first. The torch instantly melted the retaining wire and I
> had hot parts flying out the door into the grass. Missed me!
>
> Brase the pull wire into the lockout lever by heating the lockout. The pull
> wire is small and could melt if you try to heat it first. Add a dab of fluxed
> brass and then cool everything in water. Shake the water out and flood with
> WD-40 to remove any water from inside the shift lever.
>
> Now screw the jam nut and shift knob on the end and after you figure out how to
> lock the jam nut you can install the shift lever back on the shifter. If
> you lost
> the two spring loaded buttons when you first removed the shift lever then
> spend a few hours finding them. They are needed.
> >
> > James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others

Subject: Re: Hurst shifter / Koni shocks
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Parent
To: tigers@autox.team.net

I got my competition plus with Tiger installation kit from Dan Williams for $200.

Regards, Jim Parent B9470139

Subject: Speedo Gear
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:00:59 EDT
From: BMcgu22954@aol.com
To: Tigers@autox.team.net
The gear I have is........ green six start helical, with a number SBP-3 from a HE-H E toploader (the gear that goes on the outputshaft)
Bruce McG.

Subject: Re: T-5 w/ AMC tailshaft housing
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 08:54:54 -0700
From: "JAN HARDE"
To: "GS Waybright"
CC: "TIGER LIST"

Steve, Yes it is from an AMC, 6 cyl model. It does have to be machined, Dan Walters does this, check with him or Dale A. on the right #'s. There is a lot to it, by the time you are done you will be in it about $ 2,000..or so.
Good Luck, Jan..
-----Original Message-----
From: GS Waybright
To: tigers@autox.team.net
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 5:48 AM

Subject:
T-5 w/ AMC tailshaft housing
>All,
> I think I've found the correct tailshaft housing from an '82 AMC spirit to
>do the T5 conversion in my Tiger. Can anyone confirm the numbers cast in the
>housing as being Borg Warner #13 52 066 90. The gear housing is the same as
>a T5 I got from an '83 T-bird Turbo Coupe (BW #13 52 065 90) so I'm pretty
>sure this must be the right thing. I've only found the one so far.
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
> >Stephen Waybright > >

Subject: Re: Bell housing
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:49:23 EST
From: TIGEROOTES@aol.com
To: tigers@autox.team.net

The transmission front bearing retainer is a Ford part. I needed one for my Tiger a few years back, and went to a transmission rebuild shop. They had a large carton in back full of various diameter of used front retainers, (yokes) and charged me 5 bucks. I checked carefully, and on this particular retainer the inside (bearing face) had not been machined the same as the one that came off of my original transmission, so I had to put it on a lathe and remove a little material to clear the snap-ring. Other than that, it fit fine and worked for the last 100kmi. without a problem. Don't forget when you change the bell housing you may have to change the flywheel too, or the starter will miss the ring gear entirely. I learned that the hard way, after my engine was back in the car. Arrrrgh.

Jim Leach, Seattle B9470908

Subject: Re: McLeod Bearings
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:01:04 -0800
From: Craig WrightOrganization: Product Design Group
To: Tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
They make flywheels, clutches, and hydraulic throw out bearings. It is spelled McLeod. They are distributed through PAW or direct. (PAW is cheaper) PAW # 818 998-6000. I believe the McLeod number is 714 630-3668. I have one in my 427 and my 100 lb. wife has no problem with the clutch.

Craig Wright TigerCoupe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/21/98 4:58:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> mmeswarb@itexas.net writes:
>
> > Basically its a hydraulic
> > throughout bearing...........Maybe Tom can
> > supply the manufacturer or part number for this throughout bearing.
> > Mark,
> Being 100% hydraulic throughout, this certainly sounds like a very unusual
> bearing! Actually, this thread on the hydraulic throwout bearing ran back in
> September, and Tom Hall wrapped it up with the following post:

> > >>At 10:57 AM 8/6/98 +0100, you wrote:
> >>Gary
> >>>I'm going to bet you the answer you get is the unit is an hydraulic throw-out
> >>>bearing made by _ MACCLEOD!
> > >>Yes, this is the right one.
> > >>>They are known to seep fluid inside the bell housing.
> > >>The way you prevent this is to remove the McL O-Ringed fittings on the
> >>bearing housing and replace them with standard 90 degree fittings. A lot
> >>more work to install the assembly, but I have 0 leaks in three years of
> >>operation.
> > >>Tom
> > Dick Barker -- ********************************************************************** Craig Wright Product Design Group, Inc. craig@p-d-g.com 4635 Viewridge Ave. (619) 569-3484 x309 San Diego, CA 92123 fax: (619) 569-3490 http://www.p-d-g.com **********************************************************************

Subject: Re: toploader ???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 11:42:23 -0800
From: Steve Laifman
To: Scott Lampert
CC: tiger page
References: 1
Scott Lampert wrote:
> when i took my toploader in for rebuild the guy told me it was a wide
> ratio. What is the difference, and was this in any specific tigers?
>
> also i just ordered a cat 6 bolt slave bracket, is this a cheezy one?
>
> happy hohoho
> > scott > Mk1 B9472628

Scott, The wide ratio toploader is the stock offering for the Mk II Tiger. The box, bearings, clutches, main shaft, etc. are the same as the 'close ratio', but the first three gears have different ratios. The close ratio gears are 2.32:1, 1.69:1, 1.29:1, and 1.0:1 for the HEH-E first through fourth. The corresponding wide ratio gears are 2.78, 1.93, 1.36, and 1.0:1 in the HEH-B Mk II box. The Mk II box also has a wider bearing retainer and two sets of mounting holes for 5 bolt and 6 bolt bell housings. Unless your s/n reads HEH-B, and has the 8 holes, it isn't a Mk II, but will perform the same. The exception being mounting to a 6 bolt bell housing. There have been other posts on that, as well as the need for additional reinforcement of the CAT 6 bolt slave bracket. This structural stiffening, with welded ribs, can be made to work well. The OTHER difference is performance. While the 'close' ratio is good for the road courses, and is usually favored by racers, the wide ratio has a h-ll of a lot better performance from a dead stop, and around town. On the road, the 4th gears are the same, so there is no difference. Practically speaking, the first gear in the stock close ratio is so low that it provides little off-the-line torque. Having a first gear shift point near 60 mph isn't very useful. The wide ratio puts the torque on the road and gets you off in a hurry. In normal conversation the terms 'close' and 'wide' ratio are normally construed as 'good' and 'poor'. Ford's choice of terms isn't like the old definitions. The difference in the ratios shows up when you shift, and the rpm drops to it's appropriate value in the next gear. Typically, and fast get-aways, the rpm will drop 1,000 rpm at a 6,000 rpm shift. This gives you a small drop along the torque curve, and allows healthy acceleration. In a typical 'wide ratio' the drop may be 1,500-2,000 rpm. This could but you at a much lower torque value, and result in poor acceleration. In this Ford case, the drop is 1,200 rpm vs 1,000 rpm. Not really significant with our big V-8. The gears are also well spaced, so there is no sluggishness at any gear change. Having tried both on the same car and engine, I'd take the 'wide ratio' every time. Even good for Auto-X, 'cause you can run it at a good torque range in second, rather than being stuck in first at very high rpms, or a second that is not quite in the right rpm range. Just my opinion.

-- Steve Laifman < One first kiss, > B9472289 < one first love, and > < one first win, is all > < you get in this life. >/

Subject: Re: toploader ???
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:10:36 EST
From: TigerCoupe@aol.com
To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com
CC: Tigers@autox.team.net

Steve, Scott, et al We've been over this before. The wide ratio transmission used in MK II Tigers was the HEH-CF, not HEH-B as is commonly thought and published. Look at the MK II transmission numbers listed in TIROST in The Book of Norman, or better yet, crawl under a MK II and look at the transmission tag.

Dick Barker

Subject: Tiger bell housing/skatter shield
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 07:39:14 EST
From: TIGEROOTES@aol.com
To: tigers@autox.team.net Listers,
About two weeks back there was list talk about various skatter-shields that will fit in a Tiger. Another option is to contact: CHUTE METAL RACE PRODUCTS 20765 Plumber St. Chatsworth, CA. 91311 818-886-7396 This company will knit you a kevlar blanket that surrounds your bell housing and is NHRA approved. This can be used with your existing aluminum bell housing and is much lighter than a steel or cast iron bell housing or traditional skatter-shield.
Jim Leach, Seattle

Subject: Re: T-5 conversion questions
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:33:58 -0800
From: Tom Hall
To: Bob Burruss
CC: tigers@triumph.cs.utah.edu

At 09:05 AM 1/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi folks!
> I've acquire the AMC tailshaft housing for my T-5 Conversion. The
>salvage yard sent it to me with the aluminum block that the shifter moves
>separate. This aluminum block was pinned to the shift rod that runs fore
>and aft between the tailshaft, and actuates the gear selection in the
>transmission (this they kept with the transmission). My question is this:
>This rod in the Mustang T-5 should be longer (because the shifter is further
>rearward), so can I have it shortened and redrilled? Or will I have to have
>the one from the AMC trannie?
> Lastly, does anyone have templates for the adapter and crossmember
>required for this swap. I spoke with someone who said they could fabricate
>the remainder of the parts if I found the tailshaft housing, but I can't
>remember who it was. If anyone knows, please let me know. Thanks.
> Bob Burruss > (burruss@camber.com)

Well you have the toughest part in hand but still need several pieces to make the assembly. You can make the Ford shaft into an AMC shaft but I don't think you can drill it. I did a similar fit for the T-5 I created by moving the Ford shift box (cut and weld). I used my EDM machine to "burn" the hole through the shaft. It is also very precise, so the dimensions (which are very critical) come out right. The easiest thing would be to get the shaft and the rest of the shift mechanism from the salvage yard. If this is not possible, you will need the dimensional differences to reproduce the shorter shaft. I still have one out so can measure this if you need it. I also have a drawing of the adapter between the bell housing and tranny. I have made these before, but I need to know the year of the tranny you are gong to run. The 95 and up T-5's are 3/8" longer on the input shaft. I also need to know 5 bolt or 6 bolt. I also have a fixture to build the tranny crossmember. It is currently set for an early T-5 rotated 20 degrees. I use a pie shaped adapter between the tail housing and the rear (chevy) mount. I have a drawing for the speedo adapter for the case but have not made one to relocate and mount the internal speedo gear on the output shaft. The current design is an O-ring but this design has a reputation for leaking ATF. I prefer welding in permanently. Where are you located? I am in the process of fitting all of the possible tranny combinations into the Tiger shell. The T-5/S10, /AMC, Tremec, and my T-56. I hope to get these into STOA Tech Tips as the work progresses.

Tom Hall

Subject: Re: Centerforce Clutches
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:47:15 -0800
From: Craig WrightOrganization: Product Design Group
To: Tom Hall
CC: Bob Hokanson, tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
I have a centerforce dual friction clutch behind a 427 with 450 hp. My 100 pound wife has no trouble shifting or holding the clutch at stop signs. It is truly amazing. I am also using a McCleod hydraulic throwout bearing which probably helps. Shifting at 6000 rpm does take more force, but the screaming of the engine gets your adrenaline going enough that you don't really notice the difference. It is also just a quick jab to shift.
Craig Wright

Tom Hall wrote:
> At 11:56 AM 1/23/99 -0800, you wrote:
> > >Regarding Centerforce clutches...I understand that the pedal effort is
> >greatly reduced due to the use of weights which produce more clamping force
> >as RPM increases, but can you disengage the clutch at high RPM as in
> >power-shifting? Anybody out there using one of these clutches?
> >Bob
>
> Like Larry, I too am a firm proponent of the Centerforce clutch. I
> installed one three years ago and couldn't be more pleased. Mind you this
> is on a 302 with small rod bolts so it doesn't see RPM's over 5500, but it
> gives no indication of problems at that speed. I think it also preserves
> the life of the throwout bearing due to the better spread of loading.
> > Tom Hall --
********************************************************************** Craig Wright Product Design Group, Inc. craig@p-d-g.com 4635 Viewridge Ave. (619) 569-3484 x309 San Diego, CA 92123 fax: (619) 569-3490 http://www.p-d-g.com **********************************************************************

Subject: Re: Rather have a Big One
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:43:29 -0600
From: Dan Jones
To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com

Yup, the T5 is marginal behind a 5.0 but it's still amazing how far they've come with a tranny designed for 4 cylinder and rotary (never happened) applications. The Z-code tranny is a much stronger tranny than the original T5, despite only minor dimensional changes. The TKO is an entirely different tranny from the T5. It shares no common parts. Materials and dimensions are different. Design is similar to a top loader. I've been running a TKO behind a 400 hp 351C in my '66 Mustang. I routinely turn 7000 rpm with that engine. The racer I referred to does not use fifth gear. He needs only four gears but still prefers the Tremec. He has broken top loaders. BTW, you have to be careful when referring to wide ratio top loaders. Ford also called the SROD a wide ratio top loader. As fas as the real top loader is concerned, wide or close is relative. They are both close when compared to the typical five speed. The first 4 gears of a T5 or a Tremec are quite a bit wider than either top loader. WR CR SROD SROD BW BW TL TL cast alum T10L T5 1st 2.78 2.32 3.29 3.07 2.36 3.35 3.27 2nd 1.93 1.69 1.84 1.72 1.76 1.99 1.99 3rd 1.36 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.41 1.33 1.34 4th 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 5th ---- ---- ---- ---- 0.68 0.68
Dan
>>> Steve Laifman 02/09 11:27 pm
>>> Dan, The racing shop I deal with has a stack of broken T-5's that couldn't take the torque of the stock Ford. If your shop prefers the TKO it must be the need for the extra gear, not the robustness. I am sure I mentioned that I am referring to street use and choice of appropriate rear end ratios to match driving needs, when I recommended a wide ratio top Loader over the alternatives.
Steve --
Steve Laifman < One first kiss, > B9472289 < one first love, and > < one first win, is all > < you get in this life. >

Subject: Re: Rather have a Big One - Reply
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:53:29 -0600
From: Dan Jones
To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com
>Thanks for the table. I have only heard, marginally, about
>an "aluminum cased Top Loader". And the words were not very
>complimentary.
Now I understand that the SROD (OD=Over >Drive?) must be the one. SROD - Single Rail OverDrive. About as weak as the early V8 T5's. Rated at 265 ft-lbs. Okay for light duty (used in pickup trucks and vans) but not good on the strip.
>Looking at the ratios, you are
>certainly correct about that first gear. The T10L (what is >this?) and the T5 first look like stump pullers, and a big
>drop to second. The T10 was a 4 speed produced by Borg Warner. Used primarily in GM products but also used behind Ford V8's (even big blocks) before the top loader came around. Shelby used an aluminum case in GT-350's for weight savings. Many different versions and even a Super T10 were produced.
>You are correct, I was referring to the Close Ratio 2.32,
>1.69, 1.29, and as well about "wide" being relative. It's
>the other transmissions listed that I would consider "wide
>as a cow's behind", but not the MkII Tiger Top Loader type.
>I swapped out for a MKII tranny and am amazed at the
>transformation. The engine seems quite happy at 3,000 rpm
>and 72 mph. A fifth would not be important to me. The T5
>looks like another stump puller. Most use 3.27 rear ends,
>to avoid the sogs in fifth. That only compounds the first
>gear problem. Can't see why they think that overall ratio
>is good off-the-line.
Depends what you're doing. With slicks and drag type suspension, some guys run 4.10's with the T5. I run 3:08's in the GT with a T5 and it works well. It's also nice to turn low rpm at cruise on the Interstates in fifth. 3000 rpm = 105 mph. In the '66, I run 3.50:1 and the TKO. I blow 1st and 2nd away. 3rd can be iffy on a dusty surface. I do like the cruise in fifth.
Later, Dan Jones

Subject: Re: clutch slip
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:06:03 -0800
From: Steve Laifman
To: "James E. Pickard"
CC: "Tiger's Den"
References: 1
Jim,
Yes, you can replace the clutch with the engine in the car, providing you do NOT have headers.
1) Put car on hoist (best to have it so you can stand underneath)
2) Remove drive shaft, and support engine with sturdy muffler stand (garage type vertical post with saddle and wood load spreader on sump) support tranny too. Damn thing weighs a ton.
3) Undo bolts between bell housing and motor (including starter). The upper two can be reached with a 'wobble' extension socket. Remove upper shift assembly from brackets. don't need to take off all the shift mechanism.
4) Remove bell housing to tranny bolts (need small cut-off box wrench for some of them). Remove speedo drive cable. The nut can be reached inside car, behind plate under tranny cover carpet.
5) Remove rear motor mounts and bracket.
6) Tranny can now be backed out. Be careful, it is very heavy. Got to go back straight until first motion shaft clears pilot bearing, then it can be angled slightly till you clear clutch.
7) Lower tranny and remove bell housing.
8) Removing clutch plate takes a lot of torque. Be sure your rear engine support is sturdy.

Some further tricks on modification of speedo drive hold down ring are possible and recommended, or it will be a bitch getting it back in without baby fingers. Anyway, it works, and you don't have to drill any holes in the firewall to get at those two upper motor bolts. Have fun. I looked this over and paid someone to do it that had a full garage hoist, holder, Snap-On wobble socket extensions, and more than one set of hands. It was well worth it. Look at that TO bearing, the tranny seals, shift linkage, etc. before you put it back. Hope I didn't leave out a step or two. I am sure I will be corrected, if I did. Count on it.

Good luck. And that tranny IS heavy, a two people job, standing up. Forget it, on your back, unless you have a very good tranny jack.
Steve
-- Steve Laifman < One first kiss, > B9472289 < one first love, and > < one first win, is all > < you get in this life. >

Subject: inquiry 031699a
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:24:18 -0500
From: "Wright, Larry"
To: "National Corporation (E-mail)"
Jeff Hacker wrote:
> I have acquired a Series 2 Alpine parts car(rolling chassis).
>(SNIP) no title available (SNIP) It was stripped of all chrome
>trim and interior (SNIP)only the engine block (SNIP) No
>glass present. (SNIP)hardtop present, basically just the shell
>though.(SNIP) $100.

Gee, Jeff, "parts car" usually implies that there are still some parts left.
:^)

Beau wrote:
> I've had no luck personally with Mo-Ma rebuilts. I personally had my
>tachometer & speedometer rebuilt by Nossenger in upstate New York.

Any chance of your having address/phone #/e-mail/website handy for the group? I bethca I'm not the only one who has saved Mo-Ma's phone # off the List for future reference; if there's an alternative, well...

Dennis Crimmins wrote:
>I'm learning about automotive mechanics as I go here. I have a tiger
>that does not want to go into any gear but third. It was fine and now
>it is not.
Lost one gear at a time starting with first and then fourth Dennis, I saved the following post from last year for my files, it looked useful for future reference. Maybe it'll help you, maybe not. Note: forwarded without the original author's permission.

>Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:54:24 -0800 (PST) >From: Bill Martin>

Subject: Re: FW: Stuck in 4th
> Perry,
> Jack the front or rear of the car up and support it, crawl under
>it with a light and a pair of channel lock pliers a 9/16 wrench and a
>pair of needle nose. The 3rd 4th shift ear is the farthest forward on
>the tranny the reverse is in the middle and 1st second is the rear one.
>Make sure reverse and 1st 2nd are centered and not partially engaged
>as this will lock the shifter. If you wiggle 1st/2nd and rev you should
>be able to free up 4th. Good luck..
>Bill
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Sobol, Perry wrote:
>> Driving home last night I found out that I was unable to shift out of 4th
>> gear. Pushing the clutch in does disengage the tranny but the shifter is
>> impossible to move.
>> I have realized that it must come out but there is a ramp to get into the
>> shop. Fourth gear is to high to get the beast up the ramp and into the shop.
>> Are there any tricks to get the tranny into a lower gear or should I expect
>> pulling the tranny in the yard.
>> Perry

Lawrence R. Wright Purchasing Analyst Andrews Office Products Div. of USOP lrw@aop.com Ph. 301.386.7923 Fx. 301.386.5333

Subject: Re: Transmission (long)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:58:36 -0700
From: "John Crawley"
To: Doug Mallory
CC: James Barrett, tigers@autox.team.net

I believe that it is. I have the Guts from a Bronco trans. and it looks identical even though the Br. trans. was aluminum cased and not a top-loader.
Doug Malloryon 03/18/99 12:24:10 PM

To: John Crawley/NAIT cc: James Barrett, tigers@autox.team.net

Subject: Re: Transmission (long) Is this the same "Guts" that is in the SROD transpission that was in the Broncos? SROD= Single rail over drive Doug John Crawley wrote:
> Jim:
> It seems like you have the same overdrive top-loader that I put into my TIGER.
> They were installed in 79 Granadas and are overdrive trans. They achieved this
> by using the old 4th 1:1 as a third gear and the third gear as a fourth
> overdrive. The 1.27 ratio came in the 6 cylinder Granada and the 1.30 came with
> the V-8. You are correct - the linkage lever was turned top to bottom and a
> different linkage rod used to make it shift in the correct pattern. These are
> good sound top loaders and will run all day in 3 or 4. They have an upgraded
> lay shaft that has extra oiling groves machined into the bearing surfaces to
> allow them to run in 3rd. The big problem seems to be that they tend to wear
> output tailshaft bearing shells a little faster for some strange reason. I have
> an upgrade number from Ford to help this if you like. I have been told that O.D
> trans. will last just a long as an standard top-loader in 1, 2, 3 gears but that
> you should use a little more care about hammering it in 4th but I have not had
> any problem with mine and I have run it for 10,000 mi. Your top end must be
> wicked with the 351 and O.D. . . I can run the speedo into the serial numbers
> with a 289 in my TIGER
> With the O.D. you can run a lower rear end and still be reasonable on the
> hi-way. I also added an additive to the trans. oil to help make it a little
> quieter in 4th.
> Godspeed
> Jc

Subject: Re: O.D. Top loader Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:32:01 -0800
From: Steve Laifman
To: "Parlee, Brad (IndSys,SLS)"
CC: tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
"Parlee, Brad (IndSys,SLS)" wrote:
> If I happen to be looking at a top loader, what would it say on it to
> indicate an overdrive model?
> Unfortunately they are probably all "big eared" up front right?

Brad, Yes, they will have the wide "big ears", BUT, they have the small ones too. They will bolt right on to your stock 5 bolt bell housing, providing:
1) You change the front bearing retainer to the smaller diameter used on the early model.
2) It has the correct length first motion shaft.
3) It has the correct tail stock/output shaft length.

These items can be fixed on a normal top loader by using your old ones, but it means a tear down and reassemble. New bearings and seals would be a good idea ($125). Otherwise you will have drive shaft length issues, and if you go to a nonstop loader body (SROD) the rear motor mounts may be located in a different position (???). You should also watch out for where the speedo gear output is. Some are on the opposite side. The same caution applies to the speedo drive output helical gear. It could cause huge changes in your speedo calibration. Mine went from 980 revs/mile to 1270 revs/mile and I don't know why, because it's a stock Tiger MkII transmission in a MkI. ?????? BTW: Keep the larger bearing retainer, in case you go 6 bolt. Who knows?

Steve Steve Laifman B9472289 < one first love, and > < one first win, is all > < you get in this life. >

Subject: Re: Transmission ID
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 21:43:20 -0800
From: Steve Laifman
To: James Barrett
CC: "Tiger's Den"
References: 1
Jim,
There are TWO sets of speedo gears involved. The one you are talking about is the cheap, easy to replace, few in choice, one on the end of the speedo cable. The harder one, and most likely source of problems, is the helical gear inside the transmission that mates with and drives the cable gear.
Steve -- Steve Laifman B9472289 < one first love, and > < one first win, is all > < you get in this life. >

Subject: Re: Gear Ratios Speedometer gear eyeballed
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:16:32 -0500
From: James Barrett
To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com At 03:02 PM 3/26/99 -0800,

you wrote:
>Jim,
>
>While your in there counting teeth on Top Loaders, would you
>have a look at that helical speedo drive gear and tell us
>whether it is directly on the output shaft, or gear driven
>from it. Can you tell how many teeth? Do you see a
>difference between the close and wide ratio, or know if
>there is a difference between the Tiger versions and the
>other Ford runs?
>
>I am not even that certain of the material of the gear,
>although I believe it is steel against the nylon speedo
>cable gear.
>
>Steve Just counted the teeth. On the HEH CF ( the wide ratio Tiger II transmission) there are 7 teeth . The gear appears to be a white plastic. It is directly on the output shaft. Previously I did note that the teeth of the HEH CF driven gear are much courser than the SROD driven gear. The SROD driven gear had 22 teeth an the HEH CF had (15 to 17? can't find it at the moment). I assume that with finer teeth the SROD drive gear has more than 7 teeth on it. James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others

Subject: Re: Gear Ratios Speedometer gear eyeballed
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 20:38:24 -0800
From: Bob Palmer
To: James Barrett, tigers@autox.team.net

Jim, et Listers,
Based on a 7 tooth drive gear, the correct speedo gear for a 980 calib factor speedo would be 18 teeth (0.3% error), and for your 1020 speedo it's 17 teeth (2% error). Where did the 22 tooth gear come from? Not original I presume. Perhaps you changed it to compensate for smaller diameter tires?
Bob
At 07:26 PM 3/26/99 -0500, James Barrett wrote:
>>Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:16:32 -0500
>>To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com
>>From: James Barrett
>>Subject: Re: Gear Ratios Speedometer gear eyeballed
>>
>>At 03:02 PM 3/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>>While your in there counting teeth on Top Loaders, would you
>>>have a look at that helical speedo drive gear and tell us
>>>whether it is directly on the output shaft, or gear driven
>>>from it. Can you tell how many teeth? Do you see a
>>>difference between the close and wide ratio, or know if
>>>there is a difference between the Tiger versions and the
>>>other Ford runs?
>>>
>>>I am not even that certain of the material of the gear,
>>>although I believe it is steel against the nylon speedo
>>>cable gear.
>>>
>>>Steve
>> Just counted the teeth. On the HEH CF ( the wide
>>ratio Tiger II transmission) there are 7 teeth . The
>>gear appears to be a white plastic. It is directly
>>on the output shaft.
>> Previously I did note that the teeth of the HEH CF driven
>>gear are much courser than the SROD driven gear. The SROD
>>driven gear had 22 teeth an the HEH CF had (15 to 17? can't find
>>it at the moment). I assume that with finer teeth the SROD
>>drive gear has more than 7 teeth on it.
>>
>>
>>
>James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
> > Robert L. Palmer Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu rpalmer@cts.com

Subject: Re: Gear Ratios Speedometer gear eyeballed
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:01:53 -0500
From: James Barrett
To: Bob Palmer
CC: tigers@autox.team.net At 08:38 PM 3/26/99 -0800,
you wrote:
>Jim, et Listers,
> >Based on a 7 tooth drive gear, the correct speedo gear for a 980 calib
>factor speedo would be 18 teeth (0.3% error), and for your 1020 speedo it's
>17 teeth (2% error). Where did the 22 tooth gear come from? Not original I
>presume. Perhaps you changed it to compensate for smaller diameter tires?
> >Bob
The 22 tooth gear came with the transmission. The speedometer cable had been cut off an inch or so from the transmission. Since the SROD mounts the speedometer cable under the rear shaft, the teeth are reverse pitch from the normal Tiger and they are also considerably finer teeth. The 22 tooth gear was the same diameter as the 17 tooth I had in the Tiger Transmission. The 17 tooth was not stock, I replaced a 15 tooth gear a long time ago when I went to smaller diameter tires.
James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others

Subject: Re: Speedo Cable
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:33:59 -0700
From: Steve Laifman
To: "Sobol, Perry"
CC: "'Tiger Net'"
References: 1
"Sobol, Perry" wrote:
> Tiger Fans,
>
> The cable I bought does not look like the one it is replacing.
>
> After disconnecting the old cable the only part that was left was a 1inch
> round fitting with what looks like a screw hole in the center still stuck in
> the transmission.
>
> The tranny is a HEH CF in a MKII.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
Perry,
Although I am not sure what a "linch round" fitting is, there is a flat steel piece that could be described as a Large Hole, that fits around the speedo cable housing, and a smaller hole that is used to clamp this cable holder to the transmission. It's proper position is ON the cable, such that the cable housing is sandwiched between this clamp and the transmission. The other hole is used to bolt it to the threaded hole in the transmission. This can be reached through an access panel on the transmission cover, under the floor mats. It is a little tricky putting it on, because of limited space for things like fingers and wrenches. Since your clamp is apparently already off your cable, there is a neat trick you can use that will make life simpler for you. That clamp can be cut through the center of the large hole, leaving a "C" shaped section, with a tail having the bolt hole. This can more easily be put on the assembled cable and tightened down. It might look something like this: o( (connect the edges) An even neater trick, which requires a little pre-thought, is to cut that section out of the clamp at an angle. The clamp is positioned on the transmission, with the slotted hole totally above the cable entry, and held lightly in place by the holding screw. This can be done either when the tranny is outside the car, or in place. The cable is firmly inserted and seated, then the holding screw is loosened, allowing the clamp to fall down into the groove in the cable. The holding screw is tightened, and your done. To remove the cable, loosen the screw, wiggle the cable then flip the cut end up and tighten the holder. Cable comes out, and the holder is ready for re-insertion. Neat, Huh? Only trick is to position the holder on the tranny, with the cable out, and move it up till a diameter cut will clear the cable entry. Mark the particular half-cut you need to make, at this angle, then remove it and cut it at the proper angle. Hope this helps. Apparently someone replace yours with the clamp off the cable.
Steve --
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most > < important in your life > < and don't let it get away!>

Subject: Re: Speedo Cable
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:44:37 -0700
From: Steve Laifman
To: DJoh797014@aol.com
CC: tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
DJoh797014@aol.com wrote:
> What's the big deal about removing a speedo cable. It
> takes longer to say then do. The trick is to get the car
> on a lift.
--
Dave,
You are correct. Most of us do-it yourself guys, however, don't have a handy lift. The cut clamp method, allowing the half-circle to rotate down on the cable, is simple and cures the problem of access on a lift (where you probably still need a wobble extension) or on jack-stands. You are lucky to have access to a lift. The better of the two solutions offered is the "fall-in-place" design, represented by the o^ symbol. The "o" is the bolt hole/pivot center. The "^" is the half circle cut into the hold down ring such that it swings into place. This requires a dry fit, with the clamp pivoted above the hole, so that the cut of the hold ring can be made to allow a pivot around the bolt hole to slide over the cable groove. Sorry my typewriter has no better symbols, although vertically positioned, it might look like a question mark "?"
Steve
Steve Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >< important in your life > < and don't let it get away!>

Subject: Re: Dan Williams
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 22:27:08 -0500
From: "James E. Pickard"
To: tigers@autox.team.net, BMcgu22954@aol.com
References: 1
I am pleased to report (borrowing a line from Mark Twain) the recent demise of Dan Williams is greatly exaggerated. Dan is alive and well and as talkative as ever. They changed his area code and he hasn't been able to get any of his ad's changed.
Jim Pickard P.S. Thanks for the correct number Bruce, but update the area code on the FAX.

BMcgu22954@aol.com wrote:
>
> This is the latest info I have, and will be testing it soon.
> Please let me know if this the correct area code.
>
> Good luck,
> Bruce McGuire
>
> Dan Williams TopLoader Transmissions
> 206 Dogwood Drive
> Franklin, North Carolina 28734
> Phone 828-524-9085
> FAX: 828-524-4848
> Noon to Midnight

Subject: Re: Tiger engine misc.
Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 21:36:48 -0400
From: James Barrett
To: Alpdavegre@aol.com
CC: tigers@autox.team.net
At 12:10 AM 5/8/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi all, ...
>Fourth, is there a trick to getting the T-bar out of the shifter handle on
>the original shifter? I see a small wire going down through the T-bar.
>
>Thanks for any help on above.
>David Green
>B9472549LRXFE

David, There is a wire that passes through the T-bar. On top of the wire there is a lump of metal that the T-Bar presses against when you lift the T-bar. The other end of the wire is braised into the reverse lockout "key". To replace the T-Bar you have to melt the brass that is securing the wire to the "key". once the key is loose then the wire can be pulled up through the T-bar and out the top of the shifter handle. The T-bar will then come out sideways from the assy. I have had both a Tiger shifter and a similar mustang shifter apart to swap the mustang T-bar in place of the broken Tiger T-Bar. There were springs inside both shifters to apply the tension on the T-Bar. The Mustang had an extra spring above the T-Bar as well. To replace the T-bar and solid wire you will need a torch to braise the wire into the "key".

James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others

Subject: Shift Linkage Rebuild
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 12:23:21 -0500
From: Bruce Richards
To: "Tiger's Den"

Just wanted to pass this along. I recently sent my whole shifter assembly and linkage to get rebuilt. Got the unit back, it is tight and doesn't rattle anymore (doesn't get stuck in 1st anymore either) and only cost me $100 plus ship. Very happy with the work and a fast turn around. His name and address follow Bill Heeley 3621 Mt. Olney Lane Olney, Maryland, 20832 (301)774-6710



































Subject: Re: help please
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 20:36:36 -0700
From: Tom Hall
To: Steve Laifman
CC: tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
At 08:21 AM 8/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"James E. Pickard" wrote:
> >> We're going to pull the transmission and replace the gears with a wide
>> ratio set and then restore the rear end to the original 2.88. The
>> question is: can you do this without pulling the engine? We are
>> planning on overhauling the clutch while we are in there. Again, do you
>> have to pull the engine?
>
>>>Jim Pickard
>>>B9473298
> >Jim, I was considering the same 'operation' for a limited slip differential
>installation, and keeping the original 2:88 gears. At first, removing the
>entire rear axle looked like the only way, as the 'spare tire' well was very much
>in the way. At the very least the axles must be removed. However, in examining is
>further I have concluded that I could 'drop' the rear axle assembly by just
>undoing the rear spring hangers and letting the axle (firmly supported) rotate
>down along the radius of the front spring eye. Of course, there is a point
>where your tailpipes prevent further lowering (and make poor supports), so they
>must be >removed if enough clearance is not obtained.
>
>Since I am only changing the carrier, I probably don't have to worry about
>re-shimming the input for proper mesh, as it is good know, and there would
>unlikely be any change with just a carrier change. In your case, you would
>probably have to remove the drive shaft to get at the yoke, seals and shim
>stack.
>
>I have NOT done this, so this is only a suggested possibility, not
>demonstrated by me. Maybe some has tried this?????

First let me point out that carriers and housings were machined to tolerances and originally lumped into compatible ranges from positive (+) to 0 to negative (-). This was done to minimize the setup time for the gear fitting which was done with shims below press fit components rather than adjustable mechanisms. It could be hazardous to assume that a posi carrier was "interchangeable" with a stock carrier without checking the actual measurements. When changing both the Ring and Pinion, as Jim desired to do, requires a lot of measurements and setup time. This is an operation I would discourage an amateur from attempting at all, and "in the car" would be to invite major problems. Jim didn't say, but I suspect that his intent was to reinstall a set of "used" gears. One of the hard lessons I've learned is that used gears are frequently very noisy when re-installed. New gears have an allowance and wear-in to their final settings. Attempting to re-establish this original "setting" is very very difficult. You can certainly get the gears to "work" effectively but the "whine" is something you have to learn to live with. I've gone so far as to sandblast (not in the car) the gear teeth to create a new mating surface. It still took years before the whine subsided. My recomendation - Pull the whole rearend and take it so someone with the tools and experience to set it up correctly. They will likely guarentee their work if they get to install new gears and bearings. If not, be prepaired to live with some level of gear noise from the back of the car. On the clutch, you can definitely change the clutch, flywheel, transmission, bell housing pieces without removing the engine. It does require support to the block. You do NOT have to drill holes in your firewall. The upper two tranny >bolts can be removed with a wobbly-extension / socket (NOT A UNIVERSAL JOINT). The other bolts can be reached normally. The transmission will also have to be disconnected from the bell housing, and a shortened length 'cut-off' combination wrench or a 'stubby' will do that job. The Rear transmission motor mount must also be removed. Better have some help here, or a very good transmission jack, as that thing weighs about 140 lbs. Don't forget to remove the shift linkage. The bellhousing and transmission come out together rotating in opposite directions to create the clearance. This is not a job for people with back problems. Have a go at it, its been done lots of times. Next time try pulling the front end and dropping the engine and tranny as a unit. After you've done it both ways, I think you'll opt to pull the engine and tranny rather than fight the less than optimal clearances. You'll need to create the various plugs for the output shaft and the Speedo hole to prevent an oil mess, and similiar plugs for the engine. After some practice, you can pull the front end, and the engine-tranny assembly and reinstall it all by yourself.

Tom Hall

Subject: Re: Bad News
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:50:43 -0400
From: Paul Burr
To: James Barrett, tigers@autox.team.net
At 5:56 PM -0400 8/30/1999, James Barrett wrote:
>Folks,
> I hate to say this, but my left leg & back just quit.
>In my Tiger II I have a 4 speed transmission and a new
>Long clutch. It is easy to push in, but my left leg
>no longer works correctly. Therefore, I either have to
>switch to an automatic transmission or get rid of my
>Tiger II with the 351C 4 barrel motor in it.
>
> My question are:
> Has anyone put a C6 automatic in a Tiger?
>
>How does the C6 length compare to the original Top Loader for a Tiger II?
>
>Does the transmission tunnel have to be enlarged?
>
>Any one want a 1967 351C Tiger II for $18,000?

JIm: The C6 is to big. The C4 is a near bolt in- Rootes actually built a couple of automatics late in the Tigers life. There's a old CAT article on swapping the C4 into a Tiger- the drive shaft goes back in with the help of a spacer. If you're serious about this, I can dig out the article and scan it for you.

Subject: Re: Automatic Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:22:55 -0400
From: James Barrett
To: Steve Laifman
At 07:33 AM 9/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim,
>
>Apparently I am preaching to the choir. You know more about this stuff than I
>do. I just thought I'd share what I have personally done.
>
>I used the 52.8 feet because I hadn't the foggiest idea how many teeth were in the
>case or the REAL rolling radius of the tire. And my readings on the road were
>ridiculous. I was going 75-80 mph and getting passed, in the slow lane!!!
>
> As it turns out, after I went to the MkII wide ratio, and using the 185x70 x 13
>tires, I had to re-calibrate my speedo again. Final number - 1070 revs/mile.
>Couldn't get the gears, hence my warning, and had to settle for the mag job. Dead
>nuts, now, and my mileage went UP {9->
>
>Steve
>
>BTW: Do you know the stock teeth (cable and tranny) for the MkI's vs the MkII's ?
>--
>Steve Laifman

My Tiger II came with 17 teeth on the cable, and the gear on the shaft is the white one , do not see my reference at the moment, but I seem to recall 8 teeth. This was discussed last year or so. I counted the teeth at that time, but my memory is weak. This was with the wide ratio (2.78:1 low)transmission.

James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others

Subject: 4.55's vs 2.88's
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:23:51 -0700
From: Steve Laifman
To: Chris Thompson, "Tiger's Den"
References: 1
Chris Thompson wrote:
> On another note, with the Tiger I'm much more interested in two blocks of rubber than 150 mph. The Stealth does the high end just fine, with a much smoother ride. Do you know anything about putting a 4.55:1 rear end in the car? It would seem that I need to pull both axles (special axles, according to the BOOK, although Norman can't tell me what that means), and possibly have to yank the whole rear end. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks for your advice to date.... >
> Chris Thompson

Chris, and Tigers, On your 4.55's. I am not sure whether you have a Mk I, IA, or a Mk II. The usual reason people put those high numeric rear ends in is to get that low speed thrust. It results, however, in very high rpm's at highway 4th gear speeds. If you were using, for instance, tires with a rolling diameter of 23.2 inches (fairly common choice, and perhaps the largest you'd care to fit), here is what would happen with your options: Mk I, IA 2.88 gears @ 5000 rpm 52 71 93 120 4.55 gears @ 5000 rpm 33 45 59 76 Mk II 2.88 gears @ 5000 rpm 43 62 88 120 4.55 gears @ 5000 rpm 27 39 56 76 As you can readily observe, the 4.55's give you a lot of go in first gear, but look at what happens on the freeway. Your doing 5,000 rpm at 76 mph, a fairly common occurrence, and sure to drive you nuts.

The Mk II story is even worse, as you are out of first before your wheels have stopped burning rubber. Well, you do get your black streaks, but they are not very long. But, look, side-by-side, at the comparisons between the Mk I (A) and the Mk II: Mk I, IA 2.88 gears @ 5000 rpm 52 71 93 120 Mk II 2.88 gears @ 5000 rpm 43 62 88 120 If you really want a drive able car, and one that can take the power I am sure you are going to put in that engine, I believe you are taking the wrong approach. The 2.88's are a very good gear for the highway, allowing you to cruise at an acceptable rpm, but the MkI and IA gearbox is totally wrong for the car. Who want's to stay in first gear till over 50 mph.

That's what is making your take-off's so wimpy. A change to the 'wide ratio' Mk II gears make an enormous difference. There is lot's of push in all the lower gears, without a penalty in high. I made the change by putting in a Mk II gearbox, but you can re-build what you have to the Mk II gears, plus all new bearings, blocks and seals, for less than $900 with someone else doing the work. much less if you can do it. You are probably going to modify the engine, anyway, and that would give you even more performance, without killing the car on the road.

My personal experience, on my Mustang conversion to a 5 speed T-5 "heavy duty" version was a disaster. Aside from the fit problems, the fifth gear is chosen all wrong for a sports car. It should be 0.8 in overdrive, Instead it's 0.63. A 63% drop in rpm. Many think this is acceptable, and I agree - in a passenger car, but it was chosen to meet federally mandated C.A.F.E. fuel economy reasons, not performance. The gearbox, itself, is originally a Mazda derived design, and does not have much torque handling capability. A good engine breaks them up regularly when the power is applied. I've seen stacks of them in the performance transmission junk pile. This transmission is designed for about 300-400 ft-lbs of torque.

The TREMEC, somewhat more, but even harder to fit. I know, I looked at all of them for my Mustang and Tiger. Your top-loader is good for over 600, and can handle anything you can get under your hood, including a 351. Don't be fooled by the term "close" and "wide" ratio. It only means "closer" and "wider" between these specific designs. The gears are evenly spaced in both, but the "wide" ratio starts a little lower, which is what you want. The major difference, to you, would be that when you shift gears at 6,000 rpm, the close ratio changes 1,000 rpm (up, or down depending on which way you are shifting). The wide ratio change is 1200 rpm. I am sure you don't think this big Ford cares about 200 rpm, at the top end. It is proportionally less, at lower rpms.

My son-in-law's '67 Mustang fastback VERY Hi-Po car had a close ratio set in it, and he changed to the wide ratio. He couldn't have been more pleased, as was I, on his advice. Who want's a 50-60 mph low gear? If you want 'rubber streaks', I am also sure you don't want them in hops and bumps, as your axle winds up. You can get this, with 2.88's and a wide ratio, and moderate engine mods, but you better think about Traction Masters and a limited slip differential. This reduces wheel hop, and side-to-side burns and twitchyness. This is probably longer than you, or I would have wished, but I've heard this same issue so many times I thought I'd write up my own personal opinions on the subject. Especially since I have actually done them, or (in the case of the 4.55's), had close personal relations and experience. Hope this is of some help.
Steve --
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >< important in your life > < and don't let it get away!>

Subject: Re: FW: Laifman
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:11:29 -0700
From: Steve Laifman
To: "Kriech, Jeff"
CC: "Williams, Chris"
References: 1
"Kriech, Jeff" wrote:
> Steve,
>
> It sounds like you have some experience converting the toploader from close
> ratio to wide ratio. I have been intrested in doing this for some time now.
> I got a quote of $900 from David Kee in Texas for a rebuild and conversion
> of my tranny. Is this something I could do myself or is special equipment
> involved? Do you have a good source for gears, etc. Let me know your
> thoughts. Thanks.
>
> Jeff Kriech
> Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space
> Test Engineering
> Space Station Solar Array Program
> Organization L3-40, Building 107 > Extension 6-4251, Radio Page 1757
> Phone Number (408) 756-4251
> E-mail address: jeff.kriech@lmco.com

Jeff,
Looks like your with one of the companies (L-M) I oversee for the USAF Titan Launch Vehicle flight worthiness. I don't know Dave, so can't comment on his expertise. There is no reason a competent mechanic can't obtain and convert the original tranny, if he knows the procedure, but it's not a novice job. I would check with him and see where he is obtaining the parts, and if they are new or used. New Ford parts are still available, as well as from TREMEC, in Mexico, who hold all the tooling and manufactured the after market Top Loaders, the TREMEC 5 spd, and now have all the rights and manufacture of the T-5. He should be replacing all the bearings, seals, and layshaft center tube.
If you could find an existing Wide-ratio, with the dual bolt patterns, and an earlier front bearing retainer, as a core, you could keep your 4 bolt model for the originality freak next owner, and also be able to bolt this to a standard 6 bolt bell housing, as the tranny has both bolt patterns. Only that nose bearing retention casting is smaller on the 5 bolt, so keep them both. The key here is the tailshaft, and tailshaft housing length were not common, being in Fairlanes, NOT Mustangs. That way, if there are still good parts in the core, you only have to replace the bad ones.
Same thing goes for your current one, of course. I was lucky enough to have found a genuine MK II core. Be careful about the speedo helical drive gear inside the tranny. It must have the same number of teeth as your current one, or the cable teeth must be changed to compensate, or the speedo re-built. I didn't know this until I was going 85 mph and all the traffic was passing me. {9->.
Most rebuilders will specify replacement of worn parts only, but you need all the gears. There are non that are the same, with the exception of the output shaft is interchangeable, as well as the speedo ring. New seals and bearings are mandatory, and usual. I used the original synchros, as they were OK, and the bearings were OK, but I replaced the shifter blockers. This is a cheap kit worth about $150-$200. The gears and synchros are more.
Don't let him use anything but a 1 piece input shaft, as original. The replacement two or three piece isn't as strong. Used gears or synchros depend upon his source and expertise in knowing good condition, but cheaper than new. I ran about 1,000 miles on the rebuild, using a normal 90 wt hypo tranny lube, then drained it all out and refilled with Mobil 1 Synthetic 90 wt. GEAR oil. Shifting was immediately easier. It's about $10/Qt, and you need about 2 1/2 - 3 quarts. I recommend it.
Hope that answers your questions. Here, the tranny shops will sell you a rebuilt top loader, and model, for about $900-$1,200, without core exchange. Few have the correct tailstock length, but they can be gotten. I do recommend an 8 bolt later model case so you can use either 5 or 6 bolt engines.
Hope that answers your questions.
-- Steve Laifman
< Find out what is most >< important in your life > < and don't let it get away!>

Subject: RE: FW: Laifman Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:51:52 -0700
From: "Kriech, Jeff"
To: "'Steve Laifman'"

Thanks for the info.
Jeff Kriech Test Engineering Space Station PG-2 Organization L3-40, Building 107 Extension 6-4251, Radio Page 1757 Phone Number (408) 756-4251 E-mail address: jeff.kriech@lmco.com

Subject: Re: tranny and bell housing
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 14:07:38 -0700
From: Steve Laifman
To: JHef101@aol.com CC: tigers@autox.team.net
References: 1
JHef101@aol.com wrote:
> Listers,
> I finally found time to crawl under my car and was surprised to find
> that I have been mistaken for quite a few years as to what transmission I
> actually have. Maybe one of you can help me identify it and possibly the gear
> ratios involved ( Steve L. ) . The tag says 3OA G-1 , the main body says
> T-10 B-1 ( So that is a Borg Warner T-10) the tailshaft housing says T-10
> H-7, my bell housing says C3 AA 6394 -1. Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff Hefner
> B9470028

Jeff, I was wrong, when I said I didn't have the info. I found it. Well, nobody is perfect. The Borg-Warner T-10 was in the first production Tiger Mark I, B9470001 built in April of 1964. The ratios were: !st - 2.20; 2nd- 1.62; 3rd- 1.20; and 4th, of course, 1.0. Beginning with B9470057 (not too many later) the HEH-E Top Loader was substituted, with 1- 2.32, 2- 1.69, 3 1.29, and 4- 1.0. The Mk II had the HEH-B with 1st- 2.78, 2nd- 1.93, 3rd- 1.36, and 4th- 1 This was the best (in my opinion) happy combination with the 2.88 rear end for good off-the-line acceleration, and good cruising rpm.
Hope this helps.
Steve --
Steve Laifman < Find out what is most >< important in your life > < and don't let it get away!> /

Subject: [Fwd: Help and T-5]
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:32:52 -0500
From: Larry Paulick
To: SLaifman@SoCal.RR.com

Well here goes again Steve. Your email made the most sense for an old non-computer dog. Here is what I understand. a. I can't send photos over the Tiger list because it's bad. Still don't know why. b. I can send pictures like this, I hope, to individuals. c. I should use jpg or gif format to save from my mac or friends pc. d. I should not use picture larger than 100 pics. e. I should brush my teeth, clean my shoes, no just kidding. When my friend sends pic like this by email, they come through fine, but when I try to save then to mac to resend, the save as in the file menu, only save text and not picture, just garbbly gook. Don't know how to do this portion. I also understand you to say that I can use his floppy of picture and save and send if it is in jpg or gif format. I think I am getting there, but so slowly.
Larry

Subject: Help and T-5
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:31:29 -0500
From: Larry Paulick
To: tigers@autox.team.net






























If I did this right, then you will see a :picture of the trans tunnel with the T-5 in the fit up process.
You will note:
a. The structural cross member has been cut and re-welded towards the rear, by the width of the cross member with gussets added,
b. The trans tunnel preliminary cutting, which just shows the partial outline of where the round hole fhS{tKenPb0 .l .Lu t-#QaWM{2*B P$ҋ_-7 ]EI*F2ooYjܽߍYƫVLy(?-[iU@ ]j[EݜZ(`+ 4^9|h!gd˜wy;=e;7vWTmۓ~{7[1G|yhj=I FȑhDv88꒮I^RZeVN=kU3SUZlyѹTjiIGqE蝰T>EW_蹆|o]F:׆Z5f^^Z>, jM5u}+H[`Rdʼn/7Q