Tremec Chart - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
ยป Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.hi-po.big-block-ford-mercury
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2005, 14:02   #1 (permalink)
CobraJet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tremec Chart

I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.

http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf

CobraJet

--
ThunderSnake #1
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-12-2005, 16:01   #2 (permalink)
Wound Up
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

"CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
> I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
> bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
> suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
> gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
> a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
>
> http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf


Words of advice

Excellent transmission, better than any T5. Yeah, Tremec made the T5 I know
yada. But the TR series are freaking horses. My TR-3550 weighs fully 110
lbs. dry.

And if this is planned to be sturfed in your '68, you know some of the
issues I've had.

Tunnel clearance, clutch compatibility and actuation, flywheel balance,
appropriate crossmembers, pinion angle, driveshaft length, and shifter
clearance. I know you're up to the task, just wanted to let you know what I
ran into. It was A BITCH but worth it in the end. Internal rails make it
shift slickly, 1st is like a tractor; I run 3.80s and turn a mild 2600 at
75. Even with my OT SB, the 1-2 is a neck-snapper. I can chirp third. If
you want a very slick, chromed factory 4-speed shifter mated to a 5-speed
mount, California Mustang has 'em. Otherwise, 3rd and 5th will have your
right shoulder leaving the seat unless you have disproportionately long
arms.

I didn't see the 3550 listed; I guess it's been replaced by the 3650. They
look very similar. What I am surprised to see is the 3650's torque rating
of 360, when the 3550s was 400. 3550s have been in many cars cranking off
high 12s and low 13s. I fully intend to put near 400 lbs/ft in front of the
3550 at some point.

Don't get me wrong; T5s were easier swaps, even 7 or 8 years ago. The 3550
and its ilk are so much stronger, I was willing to put up with the bullshit
to get it in there. I built the drivetrain like this, in terms of strength:
Clutch, Axels, Rear end, Transmission....

Well, that's my 20 cents. Take it for all it's worth = )

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

>
> CobraJet
>
> --
> ThunderSnake #1



  Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 17:01   #3 (permalink)
Big Al
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart


"CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
> I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
> bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
> suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
> gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
> a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
>
> http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf
>
> CobraJet


Wide ratios for a real drag race car. Good for a cruiser. Does any one make
a close ratio box so you could run some steep gears? Look at the old close
ratio Chevy or Ford four speeds. They had the right idea. Any idea what
ratios the Pro Stock boys run in their Lenco's?

Al # 35

Al


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 17:01   #4 (permalink)
CobraJet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

In article <7jY6e.82$vj4.1059@news.uswest.net>, Big Al
<nospamsal1@qwest.net> wrote:

> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
> news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
> > I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
> > bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
> > suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
> > gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
> > a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
> >
> > http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf
> >
> > CobraJet

>
> Wide ratios for a real drag race car. Good for a cruiser. Does any one make
> a close ratio box so you could run some steep gears? Look at the old close
> ratio Chevy or Ford four speeds. They had the right idea. Any idea what
> ratios the Pro Stock boys run in their Lenco's?


The close ratios are fine for a real narrow power band engine. I've
driven BB's with stock boxes on the street, and it's not that cool.
Recently, FeWedge has expressed interest in converting his Shelby over
to wide with a Kee kit because of the narrow spacing. I don't think Pro
Stock applications have much in common here. What you want to look at
is the ratios of choice the Stock Eliminator guys are using in their
Jerico boxes.

CobraJet
>
> Al # 35
>
> Al
>
>


--
ThunderSnake #1
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 22:01   #5 (permalink)
CobraJet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

In article <skX6e.1272$VA3.1054@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
<none@your.disposal> wrote:

> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
> news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
> > I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
> > bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
> > suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
> > gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
> > a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
> >
> > http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf

>
> Words of advice
>
> Excellent transmission, better than any T5. Yeah, Tremec made the T5 I know
> yada. But the TR series are freaking horses. My TR-3550 weighs fully 110
> lbs. dry.
>
> And if this is planned to be sturfed in your '68, you know some of the
> issues I've had.
>
> Tunnel clearance, clutch compatibility and actuation, flywheel balance,
> appropriate crossmembers, pinion angle, driveshaft length, and shifter
> clearance. I know you're up to the task, just wanted to let you know what I
> ran into. It was A BITCH but worth it in the end. Internal rails make it
> shift slickly, 1st is like a tractor; I run 3.80s and turn a mild 2600 at
> 75. Even with my OT SB, the 1-2 is a neck-snapper. I can chirp third. If
> you want a very slick, chromed factory 4-speed shifter mated to a 5-speed
> mount, California Mustang has 'em. Otherwise, 3rd and 5th will have your
> right shoulder leaving the seat unless you have disproportionately long
> arms.
>
> I didn't see the 3550 listed; I guess it's been replaced by the 3650. They
> look very similar. What I am surprised to see is the 3650's torque rating
> of 360, when the 3550s was 400. 3550s have been in many cars cranking off
> high 12s and low 13s. I fully intend to put near 400 lbs/ft in front of the
> 3550 at some point.
>
> Don't get me wrong; T5s were easier swaps, even 7 or 8 years ago. The 3550
> and its ilk are so much stronger, I was willing to put up with the bullshit
> to get it in there. I built the drivetrain like this, in terms of strength:
> Clutch, Axels, Rear end, Transmission....
>
> Well, that's my 20 cents. Take it for all it's worth = )


I've asked him if he has any specifics for the swap in question,
including some of the items you mentioned above. He said he'll look
into it.

--
ThunderSnake #1
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 23:01   #6 (permalink)
Wound Up
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

"CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
news:130420052049521857%slither@fang.ford...
> In article <skX6e.1272$VA3.1054@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
> <none@your.disposal> wrote:
>
>> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
>> news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
>> > I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
>> > bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
>> > suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
>> > gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
>> > a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
>> >
>> > http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf

>>
>> Words of advice
>>
>> Excellent transmission, better than any T5. Yeah, Tremec made the T5 I
>> know
>> yada. But the TR series are freaking horses. My TR-3550 weighs fully
>> 110
>> lbs. dry.
>>
>> And if this is planned to be sturfed in your '68, you know some of the
>> issues I've had.
>>
>> Tunnel clearance, clutch compatibility and actuation, flywheel balance,
>> appropriate crossmembers, pinion angle, driveshaft length, and shifter
>> clearance. I know you're up to the task, just wanted to let you know
>> what I
>> ran into. It was A BITCH but worth it in the end. Internal rails make
>> it
>> shift slickly, 1st is like a tractor; I run 3.80s and turn a mild 2600 at
>> 75. Even with my OT SB, the 1-2 is a neck-snapper. I can chirp third.
>> If
>> you want a very slick, chromed factory 4-speed shifter mated to a 5-speed
>> mount, California Mustang has 'em. Otherwise, 3rd and 5th will have your
>> right shoulder leaving the seat unless you have disproportionately long
>> arms.
>>
>> I didn't see the 3550 listed; I guess it's been replaced by the 3650.
>> They
>> look very similar. What I am surprised to see is the 3650's torque
>> rating
>> of 360, when the 3550s was 400. 3550s have been in many cars cranking
>> off
>> high 12s and low 13s. I fully intend to put near 400 lbs/ft in front of
>> the
>> 3550 at some point.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong; T5s were easier swaps, even 7 or 8 years ago. The
>> 3550
>> and its ilk are so much stronger, I was willing to put up with the
>> bullshit
>> to get it in there. I built the drivetrain like this, in terms of
>> strength:
>> Clutch, Axels, Rear end, Transmission....
>>
>> Well, that's my 20 cents. Take it for all it's worth = )

>
> I've asked him if he has any specifics for the swap in question,
> including some of the items you mentioned above. He said he'll look
> into it.



Good deal. With the popularity of these swaps, I'm sure the custom parts
availability for them has only improved since 98. Sounds like an excellent
plan for the Mustang project. And shit, with the big, flat torque curves of
the 428 CJs, you could even go T56! Improved mileage at 80 out there, with
its second OD at .62!! More complicated, but again - why not! = )

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

> --
> ThunderSnake #1



  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2005, 14:03   #7 (permalink)
CobraJet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

In article <Xhn7e.1019$zq4.78@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
<none@your.disposal> wrote:

> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
> news:130420052049521857%slither@fang.ford...
> > In article <skX6e.1272$VA3.1054@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
> > <none@your.disposal> wrote:
> >
> >> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
> >> news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
> >> > I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
> >> > bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart, and
> >> > suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader wide-ratio
> >> > gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up behind
> >> > a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
> >> >
> >> > http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf
> >>
> >> Words of advice
> >>
> >> Excellent transmission, better than any T5. Yeah, Tremec made the T5 I
> >> know
> >> yada. But the TR series are freaking horses. My TR-3550 weighs fully
> >> 110
> >> lbs. dry.
> >>
> >> And if this is planned to be sturfed in your '68, you know some of the
> >> issues I've had.
> >>
> >> Tunnel clearance, clutch compatibility and actuation, flywheel balance,
> >> appropriate crossmembers, pinion angle, driveshaft length, and shifter
> >> clearance. I know you're up to the task, just wanted to let you know
> >> what I
> >> ran into. It was A BITCH but worth it in the end. Internal rails make
> >> it
> >> shift slickly, 1st is like a tractor; I run 3.80s and turn a mild 2600 at
> >> 75. Even with my OT SB, the 1-2 is a neck-snapper. I can chirp third.
> >> If
> >> you want a very slick, chromed factory 4-speed shifter mated to a 5-speed
> >> mount, California Mustang has 'em. Otherwise, 3rd and 5th will have your
> >> right shoulder leaving the seat unless you have disproportionately long
> >> arms.
> >>
> >> I didn't see the 3550 listed; I guess it's been replaced by the 3650.
> >> They
> >> look very similar. What I am surprised to see is the 3650's torque
> >> rating
> >> of 360, when the 3550s was 400. 3550s have been in many cars cranking
> >> off
> >> high 12s and low 13s. I fully intend to put near 400 lbs/ft in front of
> >> the
> >> 3550 at some point.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong; T5s were easier swaps, even 7 or 8 years ago. The
> >> 3550
> >> and its ilk are so much stronger, I was willing to put up with the
> >> bullshit
> >> to get it in there. I built the drivetrain like this, in terms of
> >> strength:
> >> Clutch, Axels, Rear end, Transmission....
> >>
> >> Well, that's my 20 cents. Take it for all it's worth = )

> >
> > I've asked him if he has any specifics for the swap in question,
> > including some of the items you mentioned above. He said he'll look
> > into it.

>
>
> Good deal. With the popularity of these swaps, I'm sure the custom parts
> availability for them has only improved since 98. Sounds like an excellent
> plan for the Mustang project. And shit, with the big, flat torque curves of
> the 428 CJs, you could even go T56! Improved mileage at 80 out there, with
> its second OD at .62!! More complicated, but again - why not! = )


Nothing back for Tremec, but the current issue of Mustwang Monthly
has an article on the GT500E ragtop. They used a TKO 600 in it instead
of the T56 so they wouldn't have to smack the trans tunnel around. They
also said the 600 is a better trans. To me, a sixth gear behind a big
block is kinda useless, but that's just MHO.

CobraJet

--
ThunderSnake #1
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2005, 18:01   #8 (permalink)
Wound Up
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Tremec Chart

"CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
news:240420051251053473%slither@fang.ford...
> In article <Xhn7e.1019$zq4.78@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
> <none@your.disposal> wrote:
>
>> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
>> news:130420052049521857%slither@fang.ford...
>> > In article <skX6e.1272$VA3.1054@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, Wound Up
>> > <none@your.disposal> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "CobraJet" <slither@fang.ford> wrote in message
>> >> news:120420051220427824%slither@fang.ford...
>> >> > I emailed Tremec about TKO 600 5-speeds that might be a direct
>> >> > bolt-in for a 428 Mustang. They replied with an application chart,
>> >> > and
>> >> > suggested the 5008. This box has the better-than-Top Loader
>> >> > wide-ratio
>> >> > gearing, and *should* have sufficient torque capacity to hold up
>> >> > behind
>> >> > a warmed-over Jet. I'll be digging into this idea further.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://members.dancris.com/~cobrajet/TremecGuide.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Words of advice
>> >>
>> >> Excellent transmission, better than any T5. Yeah, Tremec made the T5
>> >> I
>> >> know
>> >> yada. But the TR series are freaking horses. My TR-3550 weighs fully
>> >> 110
>> >> lbs. dry.
>> >>
>> >> And if this is planned to be sturfed in your '68, you know some of the
>> >> issues I've had.
>> >>
>> >> Tunnel clearance, clutch compatibility and actuation, flywheel
>> >> balance,
>> >> appropriate crossmembers, pinion angle, driveshaft length, and shifter
>> >> clearance. I know you're up to the task, just wanted to let you know
>> >> what I
>> >> ran into. It was A BITCH but worth it in the end. Internal rails
>> >> make
>> >> it
>> >> shift slickly, 1st is like a tractor; I run 3.80s and turn a mild 2600
>> >> at
>> >> 75. Even with my OT SB, the 1-2 is a neck-snapper. I can chirp
>> >> third.
>> >> If
>> >> you want a very slick, chromed factory 4-speed shifter mated to a
>> >> 5-speed
>> >> mount, California Mustang has 'em. Otherwise, 3rd and 5th will have
>> >> your
>> >> right shoulder leaving the seat unless you have disproportionately
>> >> long
>> >> arms.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't see the 3550 listed; I guess it's been replaced by the 3650.
>> >> They
>> >> look very similar. What I am surprised to see is the 3650's torque
>> >> rating
>> >> of 360, when the 3550s was 400. 3550s have been in many cars cranking
>> >> off
>> >> high 12s and low 13s. I fully intend to put near 400 lbs/ft in front
>> >> of
>> >> the
>> >> 3550 at some point.
>> >>
>> >> Don't get me wrong; T5s were easier swaps, even 7 or 8 years ago. The
>> >> 3550
>> >> and its ilk are so much stronger, I was willing to put up with the
>> >> bullshit
>> >> to get it in there. I built the drivetrain like this, in terms of
>> >> strength:
>> >> Clutch, Axels, Rear end, Transmission....
>> >>
>> >> Well, that's my 20 cents. Take it for all it's worth = )
>> >
>> > I've asked him if he has any specifics for the swap in question,
>> > including some of the items you mentioned above. He said he'll look
>> > into it.

>>
>>
>> Good deal. With the popularity of these swaps, I'm sure the custom parts
>> availability for them has only improved since 98. Sounds like an
>> excellent
>> plan for the Mustang project. And shit, with the big, flat torque curves
>> of
>> the 428 CJs, you could even go T56! Improved mileage at 80 out there,
>> with
>> its second OD at .62!! More complicated, but again - why not! = )

>
> Nothing back for Tremec, but the current issue of Mustwang Monthly
> has an article on the GT500E ragtop. They used a TKO 600 in it instead
> of the T56 so they wouldn't have to smack the trans tunnel around.


I could see that being an issue. My 3550 was a tight squeeze.

They
> also said the 600 is a better trans. To me, a sixth gear behind a big
> block is kinda useless, but that's just MHO.


Hmm... well, my thought was that bigger areas under the curve would permit
lower RPM at higher speeds, and there's the cool factor also. But five
speeds are definitely enough IMO as well...

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65


  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > USENET NewsGroups > alt.hi-po.big-block-ford-mercury



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.