Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Long Tail T85, OD Transmission Interchange

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rkapteyn
    replied
    I have a long tail shaft T85 for a 1958 Packard Hawk , new in the original Studebaker crate for $1200.00 if anyone is interested.
    I also have a T10 out of an Chevy powered Avanti with the bellhousing etc.
    PM me if you need more info.

    Leave a comment:


  • 54stude
    replied
    I have both 56 and 57 t-85 short tail transmissions here, and the 56j version has a much shorter pilot bearing surface on the "main drive" than a 57-58 Studebaker version. I could measure the end of the "main drive" if people want me to.

    The input shaft "main drive" is part number 458470 in a 56j, and part number 1540811 in 57-58 cars.

    Also, all car versions from 56-58 use the same cluster gear part number 458455.
    Last edited by 54stude; 02-20-2012, 07:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    To: bezhawk,------ Joe Hall was referring to a long-tail T-85 as used in the '58 Golden Hawk. We've agreed that certain FoMoCo models used the long-tail T-85, and with a change of input shaft, it should bolt into
    a Studebaker in place of a T-86. The question becomes 'If a Studebaker T-85 input shaft can't be located, would an input shaft made for a Studebaker version T-10 interchage?' It confuses the issue when You mention installation
    of a T-10 in a 56J, because, as You know, the 56J input shaft is unique, and definitely would not work behind a Studebaker engine. r1lark's Hollander information is correct. A T-10 input shaft will not
    interchange with a T-85 input shaft, IF that T-85 is going into a 56J, because the factory never made a T-10 specifc input shaft for the Packard engine. I know You get all of this, but some folks might not.

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    The T85/T89 was manufactured for about fifteen years. I have a mid-60s T85 from a Ford F150. It is quite a bit different than the '58 Stude version. Different input shaft, different gear ratios, different angle on the low-reverse slider gear, different positioning of the governor and solenoid.

    Even with all the differences, it could be made to fit a Stude or a Packard, which is why I've hung on to it.

    jack vines

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    The 56J had the T85, and the T10 was from a Ford. The pilot bearing was also from a Ford, and was a ball bearing type.....Sorry, didn't write part #s down....but I think the pilot was from a truck. Much larger than the bushing type used on Studebaker engines....but , we're talking about a Packard V8 in this case.
    Last edited by bezhawk; 02-20-2012, 04:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • studebakerkid
    replied
    The length differnce could be accounted for by machining a longer pilot bushing I am thinking.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    The 1959-64 Stude Shop Manual lists two different input shafts for four speed, early v. late. The difference given in the footnote is tooth count. If I weren't so lazy, I'd pop a sidecover on a T85 out in the shed and count teeth. If Bez did it before (and I believe him), it seems a question of which T10 shaft he used, early or late.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    I am thinking the Hollander is correct, in that the two shafts are different and not interchangable, IF the intended use is for original application, i.e. back into the Merc or T'Bird.

    Leave a comment:


  • r1lark
    replied
    Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
    Hmmmm. that's interesting.....I guess when I put a T85 input shaft into a T10 in a 56J, I thought the reverse would also work!
    I must have done something wrong, because it can't be done
    Disclaimer: just reporting what the Hollander says. I make no claim as to the accuracy of this information.

    Leave a comment:


  • SN-60
    replied
    OK,------Are we talking about the fact that a T-85 input shaft for a '56 Golden would have a different pilot end than one for say...a '57 or '58 Golden or Stude truck? (which are probably the same as a T-10 shaft)

    Leave a comment:


  • jrlemke
    replied
    The Hollander said it wouldn't work because the clutch end is different. The gear end could be the same. -Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Originally posted by r1lark View Post
    Interesting question, this sent me to my Hollander manual. According to Hollander, they do not interchange.
    Hmmmm. that's interesting.....I guess when I put a T85 input shaft into a T10 in a 56J, I thought the reverse would also work!
    I must have done something wrong, because it can't be done

    Leave a comment:


  • r1lark
    replied
    Originally posted by bezhawk View Post
    Couldn't you take the input shaft/gear from a T-10 to install in a T-85?
    I believe they are the same.
    Interesting question, this sent me to my Hollander manual. According to Hollander, they do not interchange.

    DISCLAIMER: just reporting what the Hollander says. I make no claim to the accuracy of this information.
    Last edited by r1lark; 02-19-2012, 04:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Couldn't you take the input shaft/gear from a T-10 to install in a T-85?
    I believe they are the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    Ed,
    You're right about the input shaft. Looking at a close-up pic I saved of the one that just went off ebay, it appears about 1" shorter. The splines are also different, but that would not be an issue, just get a Ford type clutch disc. The tip for the pilot bushing appears to be the same diameter (.750"?), but a little shorter also. Might be able to make an extension/adapter of some sort, instead of having to go inside the tranny, not to mention looking for a Stude T85 input shaft. It may be worth the effort for someone wanting a serious driver, while keeping as near "correct" Studebaker, or at least as near "era correct" as possible.
    Joe

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X