wilcap adapter question
Comments
-
One observation on the Wilcap. It seems to require a 1/2" adapter on the back of the flywheel. I don't necessarily like extending the crank any longer than it already is. I'd ask them about a flywheel option that doesn't require any further length.
Dany Spring of K-Gap fame, also makes an adapter but was originally designed for a GM automatic and used a stepdown flywheel to mate up the torque converter. Someone has used his adapter for a manual as well, but I can't remember the specifics. If we're lucky, we'll get some feedback on how that was done and what flywheel was used.
I looked into T-5's early on to adapt to a Hudson and learned about some of the differences in them. The light truck varieties have the best shifter location, but are weaker and not rated for the Hudson torque capacity. The World Class types in Mustangs and Camaros are torque rated for the Hudson, but you'd be shifting from the back seat. It is possible to cross-breed types to wind up with a mid-shift World class T-5 by using the truck tailshaft housing and shifter on the tougher World Class transmission.
A hydraulic throwout system, Crossbred T-5, and an adapted Hudson engine would be a good outfit and stays on the back of my mind. When I get to the bottom of my Hudson parts pile - I may have to do this myself.
Another transmission that keeps me intrigued is the mopar A-833 4-speed. There is a version of that transmission that was configured into an OD. They used the former 3rd gear position on the main and countershaft to install an OD ratio. They flipped the lever on the transmission to fool the shifter into reversing the pattern for 3rd and 4th. The only drawback is that the OD power is running through the countershaft as 3rd normally would. The net effect would be a 3 speed with OD. The low gear range is around 2.88, 2nd 1.85, 3rd 1:1, with a 0.72 OD. A nice set of ratios for a car like mine with a 3.07 rear end. Hudsons have so much torque, I really don't see a need for more gears than this? I'm still researching those transmissions, but seem really tough as they were used on everything mopar from slant sixes to 426 hemis.
Mark0 -
i have been trying to find a local 308 for sale, i decided i want to make a real good attempt at installing one in my 31 essex instead of the rover v8 or selling it off. i have the s 10 t5 which i bought to run with the rover setup and id really like to keep that. i too was checking out the wilcap adapter. if i do it, im just going to go through the trans and bring it back up to spec, and use it. ill keep an eye out for an affordable WC camaro t5. that was the plan to use it behind the rover anyway.0
-
dougson wrote:Has anyone used the Wilcap 308-350MT adapter to use a GM T5 (either S10 or F-body (Camaro)) 5 speed transmission with a 308 in stepdown? Any related comments would be welcome.
To follow up, there's a great webpage, http://www.flatheadv8.org/t5-swap.htm, that gives a lot of info on the S10 t5, ratios, applications, and most importantly dimensions. Apparently the V6 versions (2.8 L) from the early 80's are the best because they have cable speedo instead of electronic and they bolt to a GM bellhousing. My plan is to use the Wilcap adapter and flywheel, an '83 Camaro/Firebird 5.0L bell housing (only year with mech. clutch and T5), and a V6 S10 T5. I really want to avoid hydraulic clutch conversion with the stepdown's push through pedal arrangement. I am aware of the strength issues, but my engine will develop about 240 ft-lbs. at most and this is in the range of the V6.0 -
You'll be sorry if you use the V6 version of the T-5 behind a Hudson. I had several of them hoarded back for just that purpose.
Slowly I've sold them off to guys running them behind flathead 6 mopars. And, they aren't living very long behind the 251/265 engines. They do work well behind the 230/218 mopars, just as they would behind a V8 Ford. They work well behind 216/235 stovebolt chevys, but don't last behind the larger Jimmy 6's for the same reasons. I'm convinced a 308 Hudson will out-torque even the best 302 Jimmy, so I never installed a T-5 after seeing the others fail behind the torqier engines, particularly the larger mopars.
I ran all the theoretical numbers too, but they are not jivving in the real world. A definite pattern shows up, and it all comes back to actual mid-range torque output. V8 Flathead Fords don't have much mid-range torque. Big Jimmys do, Hudsons for sure do.
I'm not wanting to be a kill-joy or smart-allec. I've been down this road with some other vehicles belonging to my buddies. The safest play is find a V6 T-5 that has already been trashed, swap the tailshaft w/ mid mount shifter onto a World Class T-5 and adapt the mechanical speedo arrangement. Tom Langdon's site has a good explanation of how to accomplish that.
Best of Luck
Mark0 -
i think there are a lot of variables, the most important would be the actual condition of the trans. the clutch, if you stick with the 9" s10 clutch, how good can that grab? also the way you drive it. weight of the car, and the rear gears. i definitely want to pick up a world class camaro trans and use the s10 tail on it, but depending on how it all pans out, what engine i use, what other parts i find along the way, the s10 trans might have to get used temporarily, and if it does, im not beating it.0
-
Well, I am going to share my experience here. I used to own a very racy tube -framed Henry J two door with a hot 308 and a "world class" (hah!) T-5 from an
'80s Ford Mustang. I bought the car with 5th gear problems. the teeth were blue and folded over. I learned that this was not the first time this had happened for the previous owner. I replaced the parts with aftermarket super duper extra everything parts and after turning the teeth blue on 5th gear myself twice came to believe that the Hudson's torque is too much for this nice lightweight gearbox. While rated for enough total torque, the "torque hit" as each cylinder fires is significantly greater than the V-8s. Divide the torque by the number of cylinders and you see the real number--a Hudson with 350 ft/lbs gives an almost 60 ft/lb cylinder hit while a V-8 with 350 gives about 44 ft/lbs. You need a "big block" transmission if you are going to use it hard. I put an M-22 "Rock Crusher" in my Bonnevile car.
Ivan
Ivan0 -
I was also looking at the M-22 can you tell us more about the setup please.0
-
Ivan,
Thanks for your insight. That answered alot of lingering questions I had and fits right along the line of experiance here with other big 6's. T-5's are dang good transmissions for some old engines, but not all. Not the Hudson.
I had never considered the "hammer effect" of the torque output. I guess I should have given the way a 308 sounds, huh?
Thanks,
Mark0 -
ivanz62 wrote:Well, ...... While rated for enough total torque, the "torque hit" as each cylinder fires is significantly greater than the V-8s. Divide the torque by the number of cylinders and you see the real number--a Hudson with 350 ft/lbs gives an almost 60 ft/lb cylinder hit while a V-8 with 350 gives about 44 ft/lbs. You need a "big block" transmission if you are going to use it hard. I put an M-22 "Rock Crusher" in my Bonnevile car.
Ivan
Ivan
I am not planning to use the car "hard" but expect it to drive at speed on the highway and have modest acceleration, afterall the days these cars rules are long past. I can't imagine racing the car (I know these comments will rankle a few out there), I seriously doubt a true 7X Hornet could ever beat a brand new out-of-the-box 2.0 Honda Civic in 0-60 or 1/4 mile. Speaking of hp and torque, I see some pretty hefty numbers posted out there for the Hudson six but using modern SAE net applications, a 210 hp, 270 ft-lb. 7X would be rated about 150 hp, 190 ft-lbs. if it was produced today. I apreciate all the feedback and will continue to explore the T5.0 -
I have been accumulating the pieces and planned to go the T5 route in my '48. I drive very "conservatively", so I guess the question is, will these units hold up if not abused? Just moderate acceleration up to freeway speed, then just "drive down the road."0
-
The T-5 's problem with the Hornet was 5th gear. It was a failure of the gears ability to transmit the torque with your foot on the floor in high gear pulling hard and long to push the car through the air. Not a shift induced problem. Perhaps the "World Class" T-5 suffers from less than ideal 5th gear lubrication way up in the top of the tail housing. I'm sure you could use the T-5 for cruising in the overdrive 5th gear.
You can buy all the parts for an M-22 new in reproduction from many sources. I chose to have a complete new "severe useage" case and intermediate bearing carrier plate. Using Italian made gears to get ratios for Bonneville. 1st gear is like a tall 2nd. 2,3, and 4 which direct (1:1) for no overdrive power loss are packed quite close together to minimize RPM drop on shifts and keep the motor on top of the power curve pushing a lot of air. Should be shifting from 3 to 4 at about 135 to get to the record goal of almost 150MPH.
Using Dany Springs adapter and gear reduction starter. Hudson stick shift steel flywheel for a 56 crank re-drilled for a Chevrolet dry clutch.0 -
Thanks much for the info, Ivan-
Next question- does anybody make gear sets for Muncie or Borg Warner T-10 that put 3rd gear at 1:1, and 4th as an overdrive?0 -
Mike take a look at Autogear they sell the Muncie M-21Y note the fourth gear is setup as OD.
http://www.autogear.net/orderform/4speedpricing.htm0 -
Mike (WA) wrote:Thanks much for the info, Ivan-
Next question- does anybody make gear sets for Muncie or Borg Warner T-10 that put 3rd gear at 1:1, and 4th as an overdrive?
That's kinda what I was referring to with the A-833 mopar OD transmission. Not a Borg or a Muncie, but pretty darn tough.
Here's a good article:
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0705_overdrive_transmission/photo_01.html
The thing is, the OD version is out there in stock form in cars of the early 70's to early 80's. Even in big block mopars. The complaint is that the gear ratios are kinda far apart, but would be perfect for a 3.53+ rear geared Hudson.
Mark0 -
Yikes that conversion kit is almost $1500 I would throw the extra 300 and buy the hardened Muncie with all the work done.0
-
51hornetA wrote:Yikes that conversion kit is almost $1500 I would throw the extra 300 and buy the hardened Muncie with all the work done.
Y'all are still missing my point.
You don't need to do, or buy, a conversion for the A-833. OD versions already exist as OEM chrysler pieces.
Just make sure the junkyard version you get was an OD for a 340 or 383 V8.
I just mentioned the article as reference for the transmission with good pictures and that factory OD 4 speeds were out there to be had. It also never hurts to know who has parts and expertise either.
Of all the junkyard cross-breed swaps I've looked at, I like the 833 best. They seem more plentiful and cheaper than Muncies and more sturdy than the T-5.
Mark0 -
Having pulled many a tranny in my day I have reached the age where pissing about with stuff I pulled out of a junk yard are behind me. I am spec'ing out a tranny to go behind a full on 7X I am building and its looking like one of these hardened Muncie's.
Not knocking guys who can build with stuff they can get from these sources. Just ain't an option for me anymore. I swore off that stuff two years ago when I pulled the tranny from my 51 on the floor on my back. Rebuilt it and put it back in the same way. Like Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon "I am too old for this sh*t"
Good info though. Got me to Autogear who will be building my tranny.0
![[Deleted User]](https://openforum.hetclub.org/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 37K All Categories
- 106 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 19 Upcoming Events
- 91 Essex Super 6
- 28.6K HUDSON
- 561 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 993 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 174 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 78 Hudson 8
- 44 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 600 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos