PDA

View Full Version : 5 speed for a GT Hawk



Hawk Man
04-28-2007, 01:23 AM
#1 Are there any 5 speed manual transmissions that can be adapted to fit a 1962 GT Hawk. (I currently have a 4 speed)

#2 If the 5 speed isn't possible, what gear ratio would you recommend changing in the rear end, to get the RPMs down at freeway speed?

Thanks
Rod

whacker
04-28-2007, 09:08 AM
http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tech_5speed.asp

64V-K7
04-28-2007, 09:37 AM
There's that one and another article, with pics,at ...
http://www.studebaker-info.org/rjtechx3.html#Transmissions

Bob Johnstone
http://www.studebaker-info.org/7168422/sig2.jpg

N8N
04-28-2007, 10:21 AM
Do you have the close or wide ratio 4-speed? That makes a difference if you decide not to swap to a 5-speed. The close ratio is more difficult to launch because of the less steep first gear; I had a '62 Daytona with close ratio and 3.31:1 rear, that is about the absolute lowest numerically you can go on the rear and still have reasonable driveability. With a wide ratio you might be able to pull of a 3.08 if you don't require quick acceleration.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Dick Steinkamp
04-28-2007, 11:37 AM
It would be good to know what your present rear end ratio is and which T10 you have to see what you feel is not acceptable. It would also be good to know WHY you want to lower your freeway RPM.

My '54 Starliner has a close ratio T10 (2.20 low) and currently a 3.54 rear end. This combo is marginal for a quick launch but OK (for me) on the highway. I've logged 30,000 some miles this way. It's currently down for some 4.27 gears. They won't be much fun on the highway but great for a drag race [:p].

My '63 Hawk has a wide ratio 4 speed (2.54 low) and a 3.31 rear end. IMHO, this is the perfect (non OD) combination for a quick launch without slipping the clutch and for highway use.

All cars are compromises. Changing to a 5 speed will lower your freeway RPM, but you'll never pay back the switch in gas savings or wear and tear on the engine, and the car will be almost as noisy (engine noise is not a big part of the total noise in a GT Hawk at freeway speeds). The switch is a lot of work and a lot of money.

Here's a web site where you can play around a little with different combinations...

http://www.1bad69.com/calc.htm

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
04-28-2007, 02:37 PM
Just to add a little to what Dick said. The shifter on a T-5 is in a different location than the T-10. The handle will be further back and centered in the floor. To make this work, you'll need to do some floor work and drive shaft work not to mention the fabrication for the clutch. This is not a bolt-in swap.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

GTtim
04-28-2007, 05:42 PM
I currently have driven over 40,000 with my Hawk, automatic with 3:54 rear axle. Maybe a third of that is on the freeway. I can barely hear the engine over the wind and tire noise, I usually run in the fast lane at about 3400 or so rpms. If you want less noise, it could be that a different fan with a fluid clutch would help.

Tim K.
'64 R2 GT Hawk

nels
04-28-2007, 09:02 PM
I've done it and it is pretty easy. If you have an early 62 with the Chev bolt pattern bell housing it gets even easier. I used a t5 from a Camaro, a Stude pressure plate and the Camaro clutch plate. Pilot bearing had to be made along with the drive shaft and clutch linkage.

ivorydan
04-28-2007, 11:09 PM
I use a 3.07 in my 64 R1 GT and its swell.

Flat Ernie
04-28-2007, 11:25 PM
Here's a post over on the Racing Studebakers forums - started as a want ad & ended up a tech piece:

http://racingstudebakers.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1002

Daddy always said, if yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough & I'm one tough sumbitch!

Dick Steinkamp
04-28-2007, 11:34 PM
quote:Originally posted by ivorydan

I use a 3.07 in my 64 R1 GT and its swell.


A 3.07 is fine for an automatic, but IMHO would not work well with Hawk Man's 4 speed. In '62, 3.31's were standard for both the FOM and the T10. For the T-10, the optional ratio was 3.73. For the FOM, the optional ratio was 3.07.

You really need the torque amplification and fluid connection (torque converter) to get moving with the gear ratios that Studebaker had in their transmissions with the 3.07's. I don't think a 4 speed with 3.07's would be much fun to get rolling. Evidently Studebaker didn't think so either.

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
04-28-2007, 11:53 PM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by ivorydan

I use a 3.07 in my 64 R1 GT and its swell.


A 3.07 is fine for an automatic, but IMHO would not work well with Hawk Man's 4 speed. In '62, 3.31's were standard for both the FOM and the T10. For the T-10, the optional ratio was 3.73. For the FOM, the optional ratio was 3.07.

You really need the torque amplification and fluid connection (torque converter) to get moving with the gear ratios that Studebaker had in their transmissions with the 3.07's. I don't think a 4 speed with 3.07's would be much fun to get rolling. Evidently Studebaker didn't think so either.



Don't be so sure of that. My Daytona is a factory 4-speed car with a open 3.07 final drive [:0]. And while I won't rule out that the rear end may have been changed, I don't seen any indication that was the case. The Production Order is noncommital in regards to the final drive. It seems to me that there has been a few others that have mentioned having the same set up. Of course, going thru the parts book doesn't show a 64V-J with this set up. So who knows[?]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

Dick Steinkamp
04-29-2007, 12:09 AM
quote:Originally posted by Swifster

Don't be so sure of that. My Daytona is a factory 4-speed car with a open 3.07 final drive [:0].

Yep...get this...the specification section of the shop manual lists the STANDARD axle for a 4 speed 1964 J8, Y8 or L8 as 3.07 IF it was ordered with a 259. Optional was a 3.73

With a 289, standard was a 3.31 with the 4 speed and 3.73 optional.

Kind of strange you got a 3.07 standard with the 4 speed 259 but couldn't get it with the 289.

If your Daytona is a 259, the prod order is non committal probably because it was the standard axle.

2.20 low or 2.54, Tom?

Any work to get it rolling from a stop?


http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Swifster
04-29-2007, 12:49 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp


quote:Originally posted by Swifster

Don't be so sure of that. My Daytona is a factory 4-speed car with a open 3.07 final drive [:0].

Yep...get this...the specification section of the shop manual lists the STANDARD axle for a 4 speed 1964 J8, Y8 or L8 as 3.07 IF it was ordered with a 259. Optional was a 3.73

With a 289, standard was a 3.31 with the 4 speed and 3.73 optional.

Kind of strange you got a 3.07 standard with the 4 speed 259 but couldn't get it with the 289.

If your Daytona is a 259, the prod order is non committal probably because it was the standard axle.

2.20 low or 2.54, Tom?

Any work to get it rolling from a stop?



HA! Engine? Trans? What are those????? :D

I bought the car as a roller. The previous owner had pulled the driveline. It was a 289 2-V engine with a '22' code for the 4-speed on the production order. I'm assuming this was the 2.20 box. As the production order doesn't address the rear end, maybe it was a 3.31. I'll say this; the previous owner was swapping stuff into a '64 Commander with automatic (it was on Ebay last year). My engine was the basis for what was installed in the Commander. Very possible my rear end came out of the Commander (originally a 259 car).



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom - Valrico, FL

1964 Studebaker Daytona

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i280/Swifster/1965_Studebaker_Commander_front198x.jpg

ivorydan
04-29-2007, 08:17 AM
No problem whatsoever getting my 4 Spd R1 going with the 3.07.
The 3.07 was not original to the car. I needed it to make it like a more modern, lower-rpm highway car.

Skip Lackie
04-29-2007, 09:27 AM
quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp

2.20 low or 2.54, Tom?

Any work to get it rolling from a stop?




It's not a Stude, but I have an 89 Camaro Z-28 with a 5-speed and a 3.08 rear end. I suppose this ratio was chosen to improve compliance with the Corporate Average Fueling Economy standards, though its contributions have got to be marginal at best. Starting from a stop on a steep hill can be a challenge. Can't remember what the first gear ratio is, but can check.

Skip Lackie
Washington DC

Dick Steinkamp
04-29-2007, 11:17 AM
quote:Originally posted by Skip Lackie

It's not a Stude, but I have an 89 Camaro Z-28 with a 5-speed and a 3.08 rear end.


According to that thread Ernie provided, that T5 would have either a 4.03 first or a 3.76 first. Either (IMHO) would be low enough for a 3.08 rear. Even with the 3.76, you have an overall 11.6 to 1 overall first gear ratio. For me, the 3.07 with either the 2.20 low or the 2.54 low in a T10 would be a hard sell. With the 2.54's you have an overall ratio of 7.8 to 1. Everybody is different, however, (that's why they make different cars and different gear ratios :D). For me, my 3.54's are marginal with my 2.20 low (7.8 to 1 overall). It's work to get it rolling from a stop in a hurry and kind of tough on the clutch. Normal driving is fine (but who wants to drive normally? :D) I'm switching to 4.27's that will give me a 9.4 to 1 overall 1st gear ratio. Still not as good a "hole shot" as the T5 but better gear spreads. If your sole goal is lower highway RPM's the 3.07's would work fine for that goal...wouldn't work for my "need for speed". My 4.27's will (hopefully) satisfy that, but wouldn't work at all for your goal. They are all compromises. Just depends on what your "hot buttons" are.

http://thenobot.org/images/s2d/s2d_01.jpg

Flat Ernie
04-29-2007, 11:28 AM
The T5 came with a very wide array of gear ratios. Those two particular ratios are found in the NWC S10 units. V8 Camaro T5 typically have 2.95 1st gear while Mustang V8 T5 have 3.35 1st gear. Both Camaro/Mustang do reasonably well in front of 3.00-3.25 rear ends using smallish engines that are probably on par with the Stude V8 in terms of low-end torque in similar weight cars...

If anyone is interested, I can provide ratios for any T5...


Daddy always said, if yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough & I'm one tough sumbitch!

dave smith
04-29-2007, 07:18 PM
Gear vendors makes an overdrive for t 10's might be easy install