Im turning new sleeves there, cowboy. We only need to determine if they should be hardened. Anybody know?

edit-aidan beat me

Remind me tomorrow after work and I'll grab the piece of sleeve I had to cut off to make the release bearing work and I'll hardness test it at work. It cut off pretty easy with the sawsall so if its more than a light case on cheese grade steel I'd be surprised.

Gracias senior.

Yeah, it was easy to drill through, so obviously not something crazy hard.

Looking at new input shafts.

Ford Mustang Borg Warner T5 World Class Transmission 9 1 4 Input Shaft Kit | eBay

I guess the fox body had a shorter TOB sleeve. And a shorter bearing retainer.

Does anyone know if the aftermarket kits are good? Or should I be looking for OEM stuff.

If you're going to buy a new one you probably should get a 1 piece steel one.

A 1 piece bearing retainer?

Just got off the phone with Paul at Modern Driveline. Very helpful, learned a bit.

The 90-93 input shaft bearing retainers were 2 piece, like the 99-04. But both the casting and the sleeve were shorter. He can supply the new input shaft, shim kit, and everything else. I opted to skip out on the bearing retainer for now, and see if I can make my longer one fit.

The new shaft + bearing + shim kit (and they press the bearing on for you) was $90+shipping. Not too bad. After this I will basically have a 90-93 trans, but with an electronic speedo output. Which is perfect.

The Modern Driveline guys have always been awesome to deal with. I still have one of their complete T5 install kits for a 64-68 smallblock Mustang sitting in my garage gathering dust.

I find it hard to believe Ford would change the entire tail shaft housing for the speedo sender, but I guess stranger things have happened. If one wanted to convert from a mechanical to electrical drive what all would be involved? Just the housing or are we talking about replacing a bunch of inards as well?

I'm trying to figure out if my -246 T5 (3.35-1.99-1.33-1.00-0.68) might actually be useful should I blow my 6 speed.

All 94-04 mustangs had an electronic speedo output. In 99 it is physically different inside the transmission. One if the links in the OP explains it.

You and I essentially have the same gearbox.

double post

:idea: Now I get it!

Now I need to decide if I want to try to adapt the trans to the Miata, or just sell it all as a complete kit to some classic Mustang guy

put it in your mustang? :dunno:

Ain't got no Mustang no mo' but I've got thousands of dollars worth of new, unused parts for one. I should probably try to sell them and make my money back. :facepalm:

You should probably sell all that stuff and put that money to better use. Like parts for your miata.

FTFY

Lol. My intention was to someday buy another cheap rust free California inline 6 equipped 64 or 65 chassis and use my parts to build that up. Unfortunately it's not 2001 anymore and most of those finds have dried up.

The big swap meet out at the Marina airport is on Oct 1st. I'd be out there selling stuff except thats the same weekend as M@MRLS :sad2:

Don't give up on your dreams.

But yeah, these non 90-93 transmissions are a dime a dozen. Input shaft swap and you are good to go.

Got some more T5 work done. New input shaft showed up, still need to order new input and output seals. The input shaft swap was stupid easy.

Attachment 231074
Attachment 231075
Attachment 231076
Attachment 231077
Attachment 231078
Attachment 231079
Attachment 231080
Attachment 231081

Did some math, someone tell me what I screwed up.

Miata input shaft to bellhousing flange offset (from tim): .410"
Length from input shaft tip to T5 flange (on a shorter input shaft box): 7.189"
3/8 transmission flange (1/2" flange, milled down an 1/8th for flatness): .375"

So the total miata bellhousing needed is: 7.189+.410-.375 = 7.224"

Wow, thats really not a lot of bellhousing lol.

On my T5z, Length from input shaft tip to the T5 flange face is 7.145. :dunno:

If your dims are right, it all makes sense to me.

I'd rough cut the flange outer profile, weld it to your cut down donor miata bellhousing, then put it in your mill on your dowel locating fixture and surface mill it flat/parallel to the engine side flange to your 7.189+.410 dim. While its there, you mill the locating hole for the bearing housing and drill/tap the mounting bolts, using your fixture.

Or my models are way off, which is why the first thing I would do is redigitize it all.

Weird. I was going off this spec sheet: http://www.rsgear.com/TCase/TREMEC/T5.pdf

I'll measure again when I get home.

My fixture is going to use the bearing housing as the locating dowel for the tranmission side flange. So I planned on cutting out the bearing cover hole and mounting bolt holes with waterjet, then center the plate on the miata bellhousing with the fixture.

I'm not sure I am competent enough on a mill to mill the bearing cover hole myself.

here is a rough drawing of the fixture we plan on building.

Attachment 231073

You could use the longer 94+ input shaft too you know. That plus the camaro tail housing might equal no need to shifter extendo. And those camaro tail housings should be easy to get from any hot rod guy that put an s10 tail housing onto a camaro tranny.

My model is off, I updated my post to be clearer

It wouldn't put it close enough. I think it would actually put it in a really akward position, that would be hard to move back the correct amount.

Well your 7.145 number is a lot closer to my 7.189 I got off the interwebs.

The only thing I haven't confirmed is if the T5 input shaft should go in the same place that the miata input shaft goes. I need to compare the 2 shafts and make sure it doesn't need to be adjusted one way or another.

You're going to be constrained by the pilot bearing more than anything.

Should the input shaft go in as far as possible? I still need to fit a pair of twin discs on the input shaft too.

I've also started conversations with PTT (Power Train Technology) about a clutch disc for my 949 twin disc. Don't really want to bother emilio with a custom disc request, so I'm going to try and work with them.

When I replaced my organic discs they measured in at .308". They were riveted on organic surfaces.

The PTT discs are .250" thick, and have bonded organic surfaces. Theoretically they should be able to wear longer. I will be pulling my twin disc out eventually and measuring how much I was able to wear the discs over a year of use.

I have a call into competition clutch (makers of my 949 twin disc) to ask them about how thin you can wear the plates, before you will have a reduced clamping force. If the response is thin enough then I will go ahead and order some PTT discs for testing...I hope they have a decent return policy if I can't get them to fit.

The T5 has a very long splined area, so if I can get the input shaft in far enough then there is plenty of room for a lot of spline engagement.

What type of clutch is it? Depending on how the housing of the clutch is (part that holds the floater discs and pressure plate, and bolts to flywheel), it could be surface ground to match the preload with the new smaller discs. I'm going through the same thing right now, but opposite. I have a metallic triple disc 5.5" quarter master and the discs are 0.105", and the organic are 0.180" I think, so I'm trying to go to thicker discs. So I was thinking either going down to a twin disc and surface grinding the housing down, or surface grinding the floater plates down to keep it a triple disc. Usually the housing is one of the cheaper parts, so you could buy a spare and grind that one down.

For example, this is my housing: Quarter Master® V-Drive or Pro Series; Clutch Housing (5.5", 3-Disc)

For

Its a 949 twin disc. I assume that it could be ground down if needed. But I'm wondering if it could just handle it as is.

Just spoke with competition clutch. Their disks are spec'd at .250" new. Which matches those of PTT perfectly. They are spec'd for replacement at .235", which isn't a whole lot of wear.

Going to do some measuring tonight and see what I can come up with. This might work. Unless PTT has been tested by someone else.

I'm kind of worried, because if they fit so easily I'm surprised emilio doesn't supply them with the 949 twin disc, which makes me think there is something wrong with them...

Played with shifter ideas today. Drew a very technical drawing of my plans for an adapter.

Attachment 231072

This will lead out to a shifter mounted above the U-joint.

Kind of like how this video does it. But without the offset and angle shit needed.

You just rattled off a bunch of stuff and I have no idea what is what. On my 949 twin disc, I just bought ceramics to replace the organics since I didn't want to wait for 949 to get the new batch of organics. The organics I took out are the same thickness as the ceramics I'm going to put back in: 250". Now I didn't mic the discs but you can tell they are the same thickness. So yeah, .235" and they are no good for the organics. At the thickness, my pressure plate sits flat against the flywheel without ever tightening bolts.

So bonded organics at .250" thick sounds pretty much useless to me. I called comp clutch and they said they didn't have organics for this clutch.

comp clutch doesn't. Which is why I've been in contact with PTT. They spec their organic discs at .250", which is the same as what Comp lists their ceramics as. Like I said. The organics I installed were .308 so if I could get PTT to make some that thick I would do it for sure.

I don't know what kind of abuse you have in mind for your clutch but at 4 years, 15k street miles, and ~35 autox's, my organics were done. This poor life span might be enough for me to swear off the organics if I get any kind of acceptable driveability from the ceramics. I loathe taking out this transmission.

4 years would be plenty. I can do a clutch in a Saturday morning and still have time for stuff in the afternoon. Biggest issue is the PTT discs are $286. And can't be resurfaced. Ill be pulling my organics soon after a year to measure wear and see how things are doing.

I may just wait for Emilio to release new organics, then ask very nicely if his supplier could make a set for the T5.

Of all the things I want to do on a saturday morning, a clutch is not one of them. I envy your youth.

Did I mention my N/A monster makes a whopping 125 wtq/145 whp? And 4 years but only 4k miles per year. Of course, in another 4 years who knows if I'll even have this car.

No clearance for that. Do what I said.

No clearance for what? It's basically what the guy did in the video

Want to come do the clutch on my FD? :)

--Ian

Bring it up here.

Heh. Torque spec on the flywheel nut (there's only one) is 350 ft-lbs. :)

--Ian

I have never in my life seen an RX-7 flywheel nut that will come off that easily, and I have a bent 3/4" breaker bar to prove it.

Grab one of these.

1 in. Industrial Pinless Air Impact Wrench

I have literally split a vortec V8 intake manifold in half with that impact gun.

Dont ask...

Nut on the bottom of the bolt going through the shifter ball socket.

You tap threads into the whole adapter block. Like the guy in the video did.

Turns out my t5 doesn't have the freeze plug on the shifter housing. Not sure when that started, but I hadn't read about it going anywhere. I'll have to cut a hole. Would be nice to figure out when the change happened.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...73b8a80ab9.jpg

Lol. My rebuilt one with borg warner labeling has the freeze plug. It was for an 93 mustang gt, of course it was rebuilt and also upgraded to cobra spec by the rebuilder so who knows what the case it from.

I realized after more brainstorming that I actually don't want the freeze plug. It gets in the way of the shaft. The shift shaft is so high up that to seal it correctly with a freeze plug there would be nearly impossible.

Stay tuned. I have a new idea.

just hole saw it bruh.

Almost did. Then I decided I don't want a hole there. Especially if doing an extended shift rod.

how are you going to get the shaft out the back if you dont have a hole?

I will have a hole. Just not in the same place the freeze plug would be.

Duh.

Got the thing taken apart some more.

Attachment 231066
Attachment 231067
Attachment 231068
Attachment 231069
Attachment 231070
Attachment 231071

Pictured is the upper shift rail. Going to replace that with a longer one, which will extend the shifter the correct distance out the back of the output shaft housing. With an adapter the lever will be in the perfect location in the cabin.