280Z Turbo

I've got a Borg Warner T-10 dated 11-23-59 on the tailshaft. It's in a '63. I'm reading that the bell housing mounting flange to frame mount distance should be 14" but this transmission is measuring 13.5".

We're about 0.5" short of being able to attach the mount to the frame. I have no idea how this was not an issue before but we are using a new frame. Perhaps the old frame was so bent that the engine/transmission was 0.5" back.

Can anyone confirm the correct dimension of a T-10 from mounting flange to frame mount? I'm thinking we will just slot the trans mount

desertpilgrim

Perhaps this should be used as a contest to see how many questions need to/should be asked like new frame?, same bell housing?, why a cast iron 60 when '63 T-10s are everwhere, etc.
But it's easier to fabricate a 1/4" thick piece of steel with two holes that match with the trans mount and two holes that match the tailshaft mount, in much the same manner as bracket 3813335 used in 1962 for that purpose. All the vendors should carry it if you need a picture - who knows, maybe 3813335 will work.

66jack

If your old frame was bent as you 'think' it was, you might be better off to fabricate one...

Also, Which mount/s you trying to use...one for the "60" or the "63-67"...There is a world of difference...

280Z Turbo

I don't just "think" the frame was bent, I know it was.

I'm using a 63-82 rubber mount. The 1960 trans came with the car and I don't want to get rid of a perfectly good trans just because it isn't the right year.

I ended up slotting the mounting holes on the rubber mount, but I think it's odd because every source I can find says the T-10/Saginaw/Muncie is supposed to be 14" from flange to mount. I'm curious if there was a design change.

wmf62

as was previously said, there is an adapter mounting plate to install a Muncie in lieu of a T10 in a 62. you can do the same sort of thing, it is a perfectly reasonable fix for your problem.
Bill

al89

I have a 59-60 t10 and it is 14 "
wayne