If you are encountering login problems please check here

1986 TC Project

Finished up some odds and ends on the Thunderbird.  I added the vent tube to the TR3650 transmission and run it up the fire wall. Took the car out for a ride and then checked for leaks. The transmission is now nice and dry.  

I also worked on fixing the inner transmission boot. The shifter on the TR3650 is about 1 1/2” further rearward. I could not get the stock inner boot to work as the shifter would bind up on the 2 or 4 shift.  I purchased an SFI rated shift boot made by a company called Joes. It looks like it’s for the roundly round folks. I get it to work, I fabricated an L shaped sheet metal filler and sprayed it with cold galvanize spray paint.  

Once dry, I placed a bead of Copper high temp silicone on the shifter tunnel and set the filler in place. I then riveted it to the floor.  From there it was fairly simple as the shifter boot comes with its own mount that gets riveted to the transmission tunnel. 

After that, I installed the boot which snaps to the supplied mount and then installed the rest of the center console.  I do need to figure out how to secure the factory shift boot as the 2 flimsy mounting posts are broken.  

   

   

   

   

   
Paul LeDuc likes this post
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply

That came out nice!
Reply

Thank you for the compliment. I took the car out today and continued to follow the clutch break in procedures. Nothing crazy, took it for some around the town driving and some highway. The clutch feels real good and 5th is now usable.

I am thinking that I might want to switch back to 3.73 gears from the 4.10’s that are currently in it. I think that I was most disappointed with the V8 T5 combination because of the Spec Stage 3+. It was missable getting the car going in 1st gear. I thought it was the 1st gear ratio on the V8 box. I don’t think that’s the case anymore as the T5 V8 1st gear ratio is 3.35 vs the TR3650’s 3.38. That’s a little less than a 1% difference in 1st gear.

With the V8 style clutch/flywheel and TR3650 getting the car moving is easy. The 3.73’s would get me a little more top speed and might better match the engines torque curve. We will see. Going to enjoy the car for now.
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply

Some videos of the transmission installation.

https://youtu.be/puvs6FO3xUU

Part 2…

https://youtu.be/E6QaKb-uh7Q
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply

When you purchased your Canfield bellhousing adaptor, did you get the notched version for your head? Were the threads in the top bellhousing bolt holes in that notch substantial enough to torque to the recommendations?
Reply

(12-04-2021, 07:01 PM)hgfox Wrote:  ......did you get the notched version for your head? Were the threads in the top bellhousing bolt holes in that notch substantial enough to torque to the recommendations?
.
I don't have a dog in this "fight" ~ BUT......I think I can answer your question. The pic below is from the "installation guide" on Canfield's website. Note that the top bell-bolt holes are "outside" (left & right) of the head-notched area, so their thread-depth is unaffected by the notch:

[Image: C8J6x2h.jpg?2]
Placerville, California
(former)  '78 2.3T Courier w/blow-thru Autolite 2bbl carb ~ (current)  '87 2.3T Ranger w/PiMP’d EFI
Reply

My adapter plate is routed out for the head except in my version the routed section goes complete across the top of the adapter. This lead to very few threads to catch the bolts for the bell housing. Maybe I have an earlier design. The one shown above is better than the one I have. I will dig up a picture.
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply

So something is definitely different between the plate shown above and the plate that I installed. The bolt spacing for the top two bolts on my plate are closer together. The bolts holes in my head are “blind” in that the head buts up directly to the back of the rabbit in the spacer. The spacing in my plate matches the spacing in the QuickTime housing which I assume matches a small block Ford. Maybe the other plate was a pre-production unit?

   

Or…the Esslinger d-port head is much wider which is what it looks like. The first photo looks like a production head.
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply

(Yesterday, 12:58 AM)tcoupeturbo Wrote:  Or…the Esslinger d-port head is much wider which is what it looks like.  The first photo looks like a production head.

^^^ THIS! ^^^

If you look at Canfield's ordering page (LINK), you'll see that three models of adapters are offered: One with no notch, one that's partially notched for a stock (iron) head, and another with a full-length notch for Essy heads. The pic that I posted above depicts the adapter with a partial notch for use with a stock head.

Youse guys are overthinking this! The top two bolts could be totally omitted with no ill effects. The motor and trans are supported at the front and rear, respectively, soooo........the top of the bell and block are in compression by sheer gravity, lol. The 4 LOWER bolts, however, are in tension and need to be strong and well anchored.

BUT.......if you wind up needing the adapter with a full notch AND you're (needlessly) paranoid about the shallow thread engagement of the upper bolts.......

  1. Countersink the backside (engine side) of those top two holes in the adapter.
  2. Screw in a couple of Allen or Torx flathead machine screws that extend rearward to serve as studs, instead of using bolts.
VOILÁ!!  <thumbup>
Placerville, California
(former)  '78 2.3T Courier w/blow-thru Autolite 2bbl carb ~ (current)  '87 2.3T Ranger w/PiMP’d EFI
Reply

I am not to worried about it. I just installed the supplied bolts added some lock tight and tightened them. But I do like your 2nd suggestion.
417 RWHP & 378 lbft
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)