Re: [ihc] Transmissions - Borg Warner

[David Bongo <dbongo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, I'll look forward to seeing it.

If I were to do this, it would be done by a shop.  Which adds to the
cost issue, too.

And it won't really help you much now, but I've got 6 beta invitations
for Gmail.  Search your e-mail with the Google search engine,
threading of messages, 1GB storage, etc. etc.  Since moving my digest
subscription over I've been happy.  Saves time searching for stuff,
too.  But if anybody wants to try it out, let me know.  I ain't doing
anything with the referrals.

Dave

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:49 -0800, Colin M Rush <salmineo@domain.elided> wrote:
> Dave,
>         I have an e-mail that is quite long that I composed somewhere in
> this here mochine that has several links, and part numbers.  It was
> something that I sent to some AMC guys.  I will try to find it for you on
> Friday.  If I have not gotten back to you by Saturday night, send me
> another line.  Just so I know, are you considering doing this yourself,
> or having it done by a shop?
> -Colin
> 
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 23:50:46 -0500
> > From: David Bongo <dbongo@domain.elided>
> > Subject: Re: [ihc] Transmissions - Borg Warner
> 
> 
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:49:54 GMT, salmineo@domain.elided
> > <salmineo@domain.elided>
> > wrote:
> > > Dave,
> > > In answer to your first question, the addition of an extra
> > friction and
> > reaction plate would not be the cause of it not getting above 60-65
> > MPH.  I
> > know plenty of people that put the V8 units behind 6-cylinders, with
> > no
> > difference in performance.  The amount of additional mass is
> > negligible
> > compared to the rest of the rotating assembly.
> > >
> >
> > I didn't think so, but I figured I'd ask.  It's supposed to make
> > the
> > unit slightly more "heavy duty" than the stock unit, but that's
> > about
> > it.  No negatives, but a bit of a positive.  Looks like the
> > problems
> > are all in the engine.
> >
> > > Yes, the guy is right, the BW is not on par with a 727.  However,
> > unless you
> > are into some hardcore stuff, there is nothing that the BW cannot do
> > that the
> > 727 can do, and it does have some advantages.  The rotating mass in
> > a BW is
> > much less than the 727, which should keep the rate of acceleration
> > up, and
> > take less energy away from moving the rig.  I know some folks that
> > put a 727
> > in a former Red Carpet Scout, and it required substantial cutting of
> > the
> > floorboard, moving the engine up in the frame, and fabricating a
> > crossmember
> > for the transmission.  Definitely not for the faint of heart.  The
> > BW can be
> > built to take power if you want.  It is practically identical to the
> > FMX, and
> > that was used for years behind Mustangs and Pintos at drag races
> > around the
> > country, at least until newer units like the AOD came out.  You can
> > get
> > high-energy friction materials for the BW, and Kolene steels if you
> > wish, and
> > a shift kit, and a high stall convertor if you want, and all of the
> > rest.
> > Heck, they were installed stock behind AMC 390s in AMXs for several
> > years,
> > which were some of the hottest factory V8s sold back in the day.  If
> > you want,
> > you can adapt an FMX in place of a BW, but that again will involve a
> > custom
> > convertor and a spacer plate between the bellhousing and engine, and
> > some
> > other stuff that really eats up the time.  I did it on a '67 Rogue
> > that
> > belongs to a fellow in my AMC club.  It was interesting, but once we
> > got
> > beyond the initial cheap cost of the FMX purchase price and the dust
> > settled,
> > it actually cost more than just using a stock BW and building that.
> > What I am
> > saying is that if you have it done right, the BW should last longer
> > than you
> > have the Scout, and will not require a bunch of extra work and time
> > and sweat
> > and Scout butchery.
> > > -Colin Rush