Ford t5 adapter
- Thread starter hotrodcbx
- Start date
JSeery
Member Emeritus
I made mine out of 1" alum plate, but the input shaft of the ford T5 hits the crank with about 3/16" gap between the T5 and the adapter plate. So, looks like 1 1/4" would work better. I shimmed my plate out. I have attempted to ask numerous individuals what thickness the "commercially available" plates were but always get vague answers, such as it depends on the transmission, duh. Not sure what that is about, but appears it is information they are wanting to withhold! Would be very informative if someone with one of these early adapters would post the thickness. These are fairly ease adapter plates to make and makes alignment foolproof.
Last edited:
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Trucks, it was an adapter for the truck 4-speed transmission. There are various styles of 4-speed transmissions used, some with integrated partial bellhousings and some with detachable partial bellhousings. (attached figure is from VanPelt site).
Attachments
JSeery
Member Emeritus
If any one is interested in how this works and why it makes alignment foolproof I drew a simple diagram of what is going on. The Hogshead is attached to the flathead (just like it would be stock). The original front Bearing Retainer (red in diagram) from the flathead transmission is a snug fit into the Hogshead (green in diagram). A plate is made with a clearance hole and the bolt pattern of the original flathead transmission Retainer. The T5 side the plate is machined for a snug fit for the T5 Bearing Retainer (Blue in diagram). The machined hole in the plate is stepped to provide clearance for the T5 Retainer and a bolt surface for the flathead Retainer. The flathead Retainer ID is slightly smaller than the T5 OD. By honing out the flathead retainer the T5 retainer will slide inside with a snug fit. Now everything is in alignment. The Hogshead bolt pattern (6 bolts) can be transferred to the plate and the T5 blot pattern (4 blots) can be transferred to the plate. On the Hogshead side it is still all flathead and uses the original throwout bearing and clutch fork.
Note: See photos in #16 & 18
Note: See photos in #16 & 18
flathead4rd
Well-known member
I used a 1" thick aluminum plate when I made my adapter. I just cut 1/4" off of the trans input shaft on the T-5. Just remember to put a slight chamfer on the end of the shaft so it slides into the pilot bearing (or bushing) easier.
sidevalve8ba
Well-known member
How about the shifter location? The Ford version of the T-5 places the shifter pretty far to the rear. Is everyone using an S-10 tailhousing to move the shifter further forward?
JSeery
Member Emeritus
I have an S-10 tailhousing, but am looking more at using a remote shifter. One issue with the S-10 housing is while it does move the shifter forward enough to clear the seat, it is nowhere near the stock location. My current thinking is I would prefer the stock location with remote shifting. The shifter is not the problem, that is fairly easy and I really like the look, the floor clearance is the issue. I want it to look as stock as possible and haven't worked out the flooring yet. My goal is to have a stock appearing interior with this mod. It is going in a 33 5w coupe.
A second issue is I am using a new T5z transmission and I'm not real keen on tearing it down to install an S10 housing. I have rebuilt several T5s, so no problem there, just not wild about taking the new one apart if I can find a better workaround.
Attachments
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Yep, was looking at that also. Did you use a bearing or bushing for the pilot bearing? I have heard pros and cons for both. I am currently using a bearing.
Also, which clutch and pressure plate did you use? I am currently using 5.0 mustang clutch and pressure plate.
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Yep, but you do with a 59a. Plus bad guts in the Astro transmission. I am a T5z fan, run them in several HP cars.
Flat Ernie
Senior Member
T5Z is overkill for a flathead. Now, I'm a big fan of there's no kill like overkill, but the price of a T5Z can be off-putting for many.
My next T5 is going to be a frankenstein - S10 case, Astro gearset (best NWC gearset), and Jeep tailshaft for adaptation to the torque tube. But that project is on long-term pause for now...although I have all the components already.
I'm also a big fan of the remote shifter. If it will work in a given application (floorboard wise), then it's the better answer than swapping an S10 tailhousing on IMO.
flathead4rd
Well-known member
I used the sealed pilot bearing. The clutch is a stock 11" clutch and pressure plate. No clearance problems with the Merc cast iron bell housing. Since I made my own clutch linkage there is no problem with stiff clutch pedal pressure.
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Now that is an interesting comment. I like the T5z because it is cheap! Guess it is just me, I could buy them from the local ford dealer cheaper than a lot of messed up used ones with poorer internal parts (if you include the price of the rebuild parts and hassle)! But, they have gone up as of late, luckily I had a couple on hand. Think I paid $1100 apiece for them ($1,300 - 15%) and that is with no shipping cost. That seems like a damn good price for a new factory transmission. Of well, to each his own. I will have to look up the Astro gears, thought they were the wide ratio gears. Mainly, I like the T5z gears and design, but it is true that any mustang V8 T5 has the same ratios. I have rebuilt several of the stock Fox v8 T5s, but the price was getting to high for the cores for my liking.
What type of HP are you looking at, that might make a little difference. I am running a full-race type engine with a quick-change rear end and want the close ratio gears.
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Ok, looked up Astro T5 gearing, not good for my application: 3:50/2:14/1:34/1.00/0.73.
Mustang ratios are: 2.95/1:94/1:39/1:00/0.63, so better ratios all the way around (including OD) for my use.
Your gear chose is going to depend on your application.
Now for torque. A 1939 239 cu in engine is rated at 170 ft lb. the Astro is rated at 175 ft lb, so not bad there. A 1952 239 engine is rated at 194 ft lbs. So, as a stock engine it is over the Astro rating. Now, I fully realize that these ratings are engine on dyno numbers and above what the in car numbers would be. Also, if you are going to drive the car in a careful manner (no hot rodding or towing, etc.) it will most likely work fine and last forever. However, my engine should be at about 234 ft lbs and will be driven aggressively (but not raced). I don't think that the mustang WC transmissions are over-kill and they have much better gearing for me (again, this is application specific). When you determine the model of T5 and the gearing you need, you need to look at your application: car weight, type of driving, rear end ratios, engine torque output, car vs truck, desired OD. All of these factors (and a lot more) determine the best combination of gears and torque capacity in your application.
Mustang ratios are: 2.95/1:94/1:39/1:00/0.63, so better ratios all the way around (including OD) for my use.
Your gear chose is going to depend on your application.
Now for torque. A 1939 239 cu in engine is rated at 170 ft lb. the Astro is rated at 175 ft lb, so not bad there. A 1952 239 engine is rated at 194 ft lbs. So, as a stock engine it is over the Astro rating. Now, I fully realize that these ratings are engine on dyno numbers and above what the in car numbers would be. Also, if you are going to drive the car in a careful manner (no hot rodding or towing, etc.) it will most likely work fine and last forever. However, my engine should be at about 234 ft lbs and will be driven aggressively (but not raced). I don't think that the mustang WC transmissions are over-kill and they have much better gearing for me (again, this is application specific). When you determine the model of T5 and the gearing you need, you need to look at your application: car weight, type of driving, rear end ratios, engine torque output, car vs truck, desired OD. All of these factors (and a lot more) determine the best combination of gears and torque capacity in your application.
Pete
BANNED
The T5 is an amazing transmission. It has the capability of being tailored to almost any application what with all the different gear ratios available.
If you have a transmission shop in your area that is familiar with high performance, you might talk to them and see if they can build you one from parts like I did.
You can get almost any ratios you want in all the gears.
If you are going to drag race you will want ratios different from those for primarily road driving.
For one of my T5's I have the basic 212 model gears with the exception of overdrive which is the .86. The close ratios keep the rpm in the optimum range.
Another advantage of having one assembled from parts, you can get all the late good stuff like the fancy synchros, a double bushing in the tail shaft and any type speedo drive you want.
As far as adapting a flathead Ford to one of these transmissions or a Richmond 5 or 6 speed, It is about the same amount of work to adapt to a Chev bell housing as the more popular way with a hogshead etc etc.
A Chev bell housing can be redrilled to fit right on an 8ba block. This has a big advantage in that it enables the use of a Lakewood scatter shield (which can be had cheap second hand) instead of the stock Chev housing.
The rear face of the Chev bell housing can be modified to take a Ford transmission case also although that involves some other machine work too.
If you have a transmission shop in your area that is familiar with high performance, you might talk to them and see if they can build you one from parts like I did.
You can get almost any ratios you want in all the gears.
If you are going to drag race you will want ratios different from those for primarily road driving.
For one of my T5's I have the basic 212 model gears with the exception of overdrive which is the .86. The close ratios keep the rpm in the optimum range.
Another advantage of having one assembled from parts, you can get all the late good stuff like the fancy synchros, a double bushing in the tail shaft and any type speedo drive you want.
As far as adapting a flathead Ford to one of these transmissions or a Richmond 5 or 6 speed, It is about the same amount of work to adapt to a Chev bell housing as the more popular way with a hogshead etc etc.
A Chev bell housing can be redrilled to fit right on an 8ba block. This has a big advantage in that it enables the use of a Lakewood scatter shield (which can be had cheap second hand) instead of the stock Chev housing.
The rear face of the Chev bell housing can be modified to take a Ford transmission case also although that involves some other machine work too.
JSeery
Member Emeritus
I agree with Pete, the T5 is an amazing transmission for the price range. I rebuild Ford transmissions, not only T5s but AODs and C6s. For my usage I want a close ratio with a fairly low rear end gear, I am currently running a 4:11. That gives me around 2:60 in OD.
Last edited:
JSeery
Member Emeritus
This may just start a big discussion! But guess I need educated, I keep reading how the S10 or Astro gears are such a good match for the flathead transmissions. Just don't see it. The S10 gears appear way to low to me and are way lower than the original gears. If you are interested in increased performance you would want even closer ration gears than the originals, thus the inclusion of the Lincoln-Zephyr gears in the chart. The Ford ratios look like a lot better fit to me.
Then there is the OD.
4.11 X .63 = 2.59
3.73 X .63 = 2.35
4.11 X .72 = 2.96
3.73 X .72 = 2.69
4.11 X .83 = 3.41
3.73 X .83 = 3.09
I am performance oriented, but even in a stock application the S10 gears look like a poor choice. It would be like putting a truck transmission in a car for the granny gears.
Source
26H Lincoln
06H-56H Lincoln
Ford-Merc Lincoln
Ford-Merc Lincoln
Ford T5
S10 T5
Astro
S10 T5
Then there is the OD.
4.11 X .63 = 2.59
3.73 X .63 = 2.35
4.11 X .72 = 2.96
3.73 X .72 = 2.69
4.11 X .83 = 3.41
3.73 X .83 = 3.09
I am performance oriented, but even in a stock application the S10 gears look like a poor choice. It would be like putting a truck transmission in a car for the granny gears.
Source
Teeth
Low
Second
High
26H Lincoln
25
2.12
1.44
1.00
06H-56H Lincoln
26
2.33
1.58
1.00
Ford-Merc Lincoln
28
2.82
1.60
1.00
Ford-Merc Lincoln
29
3.11
1.77
1.00
Ford T5
N/A
2.95
1.94
1.34
1.00
.63
N/A
4.03
2.37
1.49
1.00
.86
N/A
3.50
2.14
1.39
1.00
.73
N/A
3.76
2.18
1.41
1.00
.72
Ol' Ron
Well-known member
JSeery
The thickness I use for the adapter is 11./16. This is used with a stock 49-53 Bell housing and clutch. Making it an inexpensive method of installing a T-5 to a late Flathead. And the use od a Hogs head might have a different thickness for the 59 or earlier block. The T-5 is one of the best options for a flathead, and as Pete says, you can get it anyway you want. Check out Richards installation.
The thickness I use for the adapter is 11./16. This is used with a stock 49-53 Bell housing and clutch. Making it an inexpensive method of installing a T-5 to a late Flathead. And the use od a Hogs head might have a different thickness for the 59 or earlier block. The T-5 is one of the best options for a flathead, and as Pete says, you can get it anyway you want. Check out Richards installation.
JSeery
Member Emeritus
Built mine using 1.00 inch plate. That leaves the Ford input shaft ~3/16 to long which can be cut off the end. Guess you could use an 1 1/4 inch plate or shim the 1 inch plate out (what I did at first), but cutting the pilot bearing part of the input shaft by ~.25 inch seems to be the best approach. All of this pertains to the 59a block using a hogshead. Ol' Ron has the approach for the 49-53 blocks, and it looks like a simple and proven approach to those flatheads.
I have a Speedway adapter for S10 T5 to 59 style block. It is 3 3/4" from block mounting surface to transmission mounting surface. If somebody has a hogshead to measure and subtract the difference it should give you the thickness of the plate. (Don't know if the Mustang T5 would need the same depth as the S10)