quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...this assumes you can unbolt your crossmember and drop it and the exhaust...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but on a 4-speed car that isn't an option unless the crossmember was cut out and made replaceable.

Now I have to wonder if you can get either the 5-speed or 6-speed with the 3.01 (the chart lists 3.08 but other locations show it a 3.01) 1st gear ratio but the rest of the basic gears. I'm not sure how to interpret the Richmond chart. Can you mix and match the clusters?

3.01
2.13 29.2%
1.57 26.3%
1.24 21.0%
1 19.4%
0.76 24.0%

Instead of

3.27
2.13 34.9%
1.57 26.3%
1.24 21.0%
1 19.4%
0.76 24.0%

The gear spacing is a lot more consistent and I have no problem with a 3.01 1st and a 3.08 rear. That's a FD of 9.27.

A 5-speed with those ratios (minus the OD of course) would be almost ideal for a high winding 427!



[Modified by 69L71, 1:42 PM 2/8/2002]

 

<<A 5-speed with those ratios (minus the OD of course) would be almost ideal for a high winding 427! >>

That brings up an interesting point a friend of mine is trying to make about 4 speeds. He doesn't think I'll get that much of a performance gain out of a 5 speed over my 4 because I have a torquey low revving engine. A 5 speed would be better matched on a high revving engine. I think he's getting too deep for me. :)

 

Your friend is loony.

Either the 5-speed or 6-speed option just adds another gear. True, you're not likely to wind your motor to 7000RPM but the added torque multiplication in 1st gear will make your car dig in and scream off the line. You're car will behave just like you bolted in a 4.11 rear and an overdrive trans. Besides, what makes you think you're not gonna add more high perf goodies down the road?

 

<< Besides, what makes you think you're not gonna add more high perf goodies down the road?>>

I certainly hope I will
:D

 

Your friend may be right, but what about the fun factor? That's worth alot to me. I started with a Th400 car, swaped in the M-20 which I drove for many years, and finally made the switch to the 5 speed. Under normal conditions and my novice racing style, the TH400 would be faster in the 1/4 mi. Would I go back to the Auto to pick up several 1/10ths in the 1/4? Hell no!!! :D The Five speed is way too much fun.
The performance of the car will depend on the overall engine/tranny/rear combination. In my case, I have the power to go faster than I am now capable of, but traction is my biggest problem. My engine does not come alive until 2700rpm. This forces me to dump the clutch at a higher rpm causing alot of wheel spin. If your engine makes alot of torque down low, then you will be able to launch just above idle, plant the tires and get your engine up to your power peak quickly through the use of the low first gear. A high reving engine(at least 5500) would be better, but it will still work fine with whatever you have.

I have to admit that when I took my car out for the first time with the new 5 speed, I thought that I had made a mistake. I have the 3.28 first gear with 3.36 in the rear and it felt WAYYYYY too low at first because it was such a drastic change from the old M-20. Cruising around town in traffic and shifting a 2500-3000 makes first gear seem quite low, but when you run it to red line, there in no doubt that it is perfect!!! Though your right that the first to second gear drop is not consistant with the rest of the gear spacing, the 1st-2nd shift is the most forgiving. In my opinion, it would not be worth the extra trouble of ordering the custom gearing setup over the standard 3.28 first gear setup, since it really will make little difference or even be noticable in first gear.

Tom

 

Thanks, Flareside! :cool:

 

Good point. Sorry I missed that the first time around. :bb

As one who has a bolt-in crossmember, and knowing how many times I've had to drop that sucker in my car's 218 kmile life, I'd say converting that welded-in crossmember to a bolt-in would be WELL worth the effort.

Quite likely not... The tail shaft doesn't come off; it runs all the way into the transmission. You might be able to get the tail housing loose, but I doubt you'd be able to slip it back far enough to clear the tail shaft.

-Noel


[Modified by Noel Carboni, 10:00 PM 2/8/2002]

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite likely not... The tail shaft doesn't come off; it runs all the way into the transmission. You might be able to get the tail housing loose, but I doubt you'd be able to slip it back far enough to clear the tail shaft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May indeed be the case. Just reporting what I've heard from others. In my case its OBE because I plan to install whichever trans I go with (along with the motor) while the body is off. It doesn't get any easier than that! If, down the road, I choose to replace the stock M21 I can always pull the whole drivetrain or pull the motor forward to drop the trans. In any case, I have a low mileage, original, 427/435, and I'm not keen about hacking up the frame despite how convienient it might be. Pulling the engine/trans is an exercise I've done 1000 times as a youngster



[Modified by 69L71, 9:35 AM 2/9/2002]

 

The directions that come with the tranny that Joe(flareside) posted in the PDF file tell you exactly how to get it up an in. My car was originaly a TH400(removable crossmember) car, so I did not have to do it that way. I have talked to several others about the install, and though it sounds dificult to remove the tailshaft housing and replace once the tranny is in place, they all said that it was easier than they thought it would be. I figured getting to the bolts to tighten up the tailshaft housing would be pretty hard, but again, they said there was more than enough room to work with and in went quickly. Keep in mind though that this tranny is heavier than a four speed and close to the weight of a TH400. The weight alone will be your biggest obstacle.
I should also note that Richmond strongly recommends the use of the Long Eng. shifter over the Hurst. The Hurst has been responsible for causing damage to many of their trannies do to a problem with the stops in the shifter. Many here on the forum use the Hurst with no problems, but I though I should mention this anyway.
One last thing. The sketch found on the bottom of the PDF file was made by me. If you have any questions about it or the modifictions needed for the tranny mount bracket, just let me know. tom71@flash.net

Tom :cheers:

 

Noel, Richmond's installation instructions in the PDF file say to remove the tail housing, but they may be wrong. I think Allan71 said a while back that he couldn't get his in even after removing the housing, so it must be a VERY tight fit. He had to move the engine forward.

-Joe

 

Seems unlikely... The transmission itself has a nifty mechanical arrangement that will not allow two adjacent arms to be shifted into gear at the same time. There are little cams on the inside of the shift arms that rotate with the shift, causing a ball to push on a rod when a gear is engaged. In turn the rod pushes on another ball that locks solid in what is normally the neutral detent slot. It's really quite neat, though a bit of a pain to reassemble. :smash:

I've had both Hurst and Long shifters... The Hurst is quite loose by comparison to the Long. In addition, the Long that I got with my 6 speed has heim joints on all the shift arms, as opposed to bent rods with bushings.

Based on my experience, I recommend the Long.

-Noel

 

does anybody have a picture of that 5 speed hurst shifter?

 

What would anyone recommend if I already have a 4.11 rear, and would prefer not to change it? Is doing any of the 5 or 6 speed swaps ridiculous for me? I've half considered going to a numerically higher rear gear even, and doing a 5 or 6 speed to preserve highway usability... with good 10" tires on the back , I figure I ought to just about be able to pull a wheelie that way, and still do over 120 in top gear....which is more than I need. I've got the Lincoln Ls for extended high speed highway cruising when I need to for long trips. (and for reference sake, in the Lincoln Ls, having your sunroof open at over 130 is a bad idea, causes your ears to pop..... :D )

 

This is some interesting stuff. I'm not sure if I'll be doing this soon but finding some of this out now will help me decide later. How does the interior look with these trannys'? Does it look stock? I would like the interior and under carriage to remain unchanged(understanding changing of brackets etc.) if I were to do this.

 

Yes :D The great thing about these trannies is the fact that you can run a 3.08 or 3.36 in the rear and still have the same ratio in 1st as a 4speed running 4.56. I don't think any human being could shift fast enough with the 3.27 1st gear and your 4.11's. Trust me. I know. I used to run 5.57's in my streetrod with a TH400. 7500RPM in first at about 20mph :eek: :eek: When the gearing gets that low, it will actually hold you back, and is absolutely no fun to drive at all.

69shark, The only difference in the interior would be the shifter handle. If you go with the Hurst shifter, I believe several of the larger Corvette parts vendors sell a factory looking handle for that shifter. I suppose you could also make it work with the Long shifter too, but I have not tried. I am currently using my old Hurst comp+ shifter handle from my old Muncie that I modified to fit the Long shifter. There are others avaliable from Richmond, but they do not look stock. As for the tranny itself, other than the bracket modification, the Richmond five speed is a straight forward bolt in item.

Tom

 

69shark,

TSW71 is on the money. Going lower than 3.36 with the Richmond 5 or 6 speed doesn't make much sense. The 5 speed is a little easier to install because the 6 speed in about 1.5 inches longer causing a few minor inconveniences. You can buy a factory shifter handle copy that will bolt up to the Hurst, (or even the Longs with minor modification). No one will know unless you tell them.

I've got interior shots of my 6 speed on another post near this one for you to see if you like. Most would never know, even though I'm not using the factory shifter handle copy available for about $100.

Chuck

 

I'm the looney friend who recommended a wide ratio 4 over the Richmond 5 speed for a low rpm motor. With a 3.27 first gear and 3.08 rear, a motor that has peaked at 5000 rpm would be out of gear at 38 miles an hour. Do the math. That is too much gear. Did you guys forget to match the gearing to the torque curve? The low first gear makes it easier to drive in traffic. The close gears of the Richmond 5 are fun behind a motor that can see a strong 6,000 rpm.

 

Yeah, I was also considering going with something that numerically high for a rear, leaving the muncie in, and getting one of the manual overdrive units like the Gear Vendors one (just to retain being able to go over 80). I kinda plan to autocross, rather than drag race, so that low end acceleration (and control) are a lot more important. But damn, i've got to drive her up to Bowling Green next year for the 50th anniversary, so maybe I just leave the 4.11s in till after that ;)

 

stngry63, Don't worry about it. We're all a little looney around here. :crazy: That explains why we spend so much time on this forum. It may very well be too much gear for a low reving torquey motor, but It would still be fun. Also, that's just the kind of motivation one needs to build a screamer that will turn 7000rpm :D Just remember, it's always easier for me to make these recommendations when it's someone elses money :D


Black68Vette, What engine are running that requires anything more than your 4.11's?? I can't imagine making a long trip with 4.11's. Getting passed on the highway by a Geo as I'm cruising along a 4000 rpm at 70mph in my streetrod with my 4.56's takes the fun out of driving for me.

 

stinry63,

I'm not sure I understand your post? The Richmond 5 and 6 speeds have the same standard gears 1-5. The standard first gear is 3.27:1. Yes a low first gear does make driving in traffic easier, that is why I have this ratio with an engine that really doesn't begin to feel its oats until it hits 3000 rpm.

I wouldn't say you were Looney at all for recommending a wide ratio 4 speed at all. The wide ratio Borg Warner ST10 w/ 2.67:1 first gear was a terrific tranny. It gave wider ratios in the lower gears where the torque multiplication was still more than the tires could hold and closer ratio from 3-4th when the car would be traveling at a much higher speed.

I don't consider the standard Richmond 5 or 6 speed gears to be a particularly close with a 53.5% difference between 1st and 2nd. But the simple math is that the higher the rear end number, the fewer mph's there will be between each gear change. Using a Richmond 5 or 6 speed with a 4.11 rear end gives the equivalent of a 6.11 rear gear with the M22 4 speed tranny, 28 mph in 1st @ 5000 rpm using 235/60/15 tires. Even a 100% jump would only be 56 mph in 2nd. For me this only makes sense if you plan to sit in rush hour traffic as the normal driving routine.

Chuck


[Modified by Chuck Harmon, 10:02 AM 2/19/2002]