Jump to content
Server maintenance Read more... ×
cisco

T5 into Late XE

Recommended Posts

Hello the "Brains Trust".

I have a late 84 XE Fairmont to which I recently fitted a blueprinted, fully balanced and mild cammed XF 4.1L engine and a 4 speed single rail gearbox from an XD.

All is going fine but we always want to go better don't we??

 

I have located a 5 speed gearbox in an XF that will come with everything including flywheel, tail shaft, clutch cable and transmission hump for $450 which seems quite reasonable. Am awaiting confirmation that it is the alloy box as fitted behind 4.1L engines and not the cast iron box fitted behind 3.3L engines.

 

I am assuming that if it is the alloy box, it will bolt straight in to my XE.

 

Will that be the case or does anyone know of anything that will have to be modified? The only thing I can think of is that the engine to shifter distance may not be the same neccesitating some modification to the console.

 

The diff I have is a drum brake 2.77. I believe this is the same ratio as fitted to the XFs but they had disc brakes.

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cisco said:

I have located a 5 speed gearbox in an XF that will come with everything including flywheel, tail shaft, clutch cable and transmission hump for $450 which seems quite reasonable. Am awaiting confirmation that it is the alloy box as fitted behind 4.1L engines and not the cast iron box fitted behind 3.3L engines.

 

I am assuming that if it is the alloy box, it will bolt straight in to my XE.

 

the 3.3 5 speed has reverse next to 1st, and an alloy bell housing (the gearbox is alloy also and the box unbolts from the bell housing from inside the bell housing..)

 

the T5 from XF has a cast iron bell housing, reverse next to 4th gear, 

 

with a 2.77 diff ratio i'd consider keeping the single rail if your cam isn't going to be happy lugging at 1750rpm at 100kmh , you may end up only using 4th unless over the speed limit. 

providing the single rail is good. (you can get various fixes if the shifter is sloppy) but they are a strong gearbox when good(handle a 351 no issue when rebuilt)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tried to google pics of the gearbox, 

didn't come up with any. 

 

the T5 uses all single rail clutch/flywheel etc. uses same tailshaft also. 

the 3.3 box is same as was used in a mitsubishi sigma from memory, needs a different clutch and also different tailshaft. 

 

but here's a bit of a T5 box (EA) mounted on a single rail bell housing i had.. (clutch cable on a T5 bell housing is on passenger side)

vLiEip1.jpg

 

the T5 needs a "banana" cross member, for XF and XE 

i made my own..  the mounting is further back than what the other boxes use. 

 

the XF T5 uses the same mounting rubber as the single rail, the EA to EL uses one bolt to mount to cross member. 

 

zYSAc8P.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ESPSIX said:

XF T5 won’t be world class, no synchro into first, and shorter first gear than the later boxes.

and not worth the effort with 2:77 diff, 3:23 would be minimum.

 

no syncro on reverse, they had it on first. 

the shorter first gear is for the 2.92 diff ratio to be able to hill start with a load i reckon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a wide ratio, XF-EA T5 in mine behind a 302 and it is indeed a world class. It also has synchro on 1st (all T5s, WC or non-WC have it actually).

The non-WC has a few clues as to its identity, the main one being the layshaft bearing on the front face of the box just being a plain roller type (with bronze thrust washers inside) identified externally by what looks like a welch plug turned inside out.

The WC box has a tapered bearing here with a cast steel cap that forms the bearing cup for the race. From outside, it looks like the top of a small piston with a slight dish in it and the outer edge will be a machined finish.

Non-WC takes a light (non-EP) gear oil, and has bronze syncros.

WC takes red auto fluid and has fibre-lined steel syncros.

Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, deankdx said:

 

no syncro on reverse, they had it on first. 

the shorter first gear is for the 2.92 diff ratio to be able to hill start with a load i reckon. 

You are probably are right, but I had one out of a xf that never liked going into first if the car was moving at all.

I did my first conversion about 18 years ago into a ZL and my second only 12 years ago, so remembering things are a bit foggy.😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cisco said:

Thanks for the feedback fellas. Seems like no real advantage unless I put the 2.92 diff in as well.

That makes it an epic task so I think I will can the idea.

2.77 and 2.92 are almost no different (5%) @Panko was having enough issues to change his from 2.77 to 2.92 with the T5, 

i've kept the 2.77 in most cases and not had any issues (shuddering i think on take off the main complaint i think)

that's with stock cams etc that work very well at low revs.(1800 ish at 100kmh) difference for Me though is no fuel saving was made going from 2.77 in the 4 speed at 2250rpm to 1800rpm in 5th with the T5 .. only difference was less engine noise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the diff ratio, even though 2.92 is only 5% different to the 2.77, it made a big difference to the way my car drove. 
XF Ghia, EFi crossflow with an early T5 (1988 build date) 

 

depending which year the box is, will depend on its 1st and 5th gear ratios. 
 

So if its an early gearbox like mine, matched with a 2.92 diff, it will do the same or similar rpm to a car fitted with a late (EL) T5 and 3.23 diff ratio. 
 

@Mr Polson and I have proven this. 
 

So yes i drove around for a long time with the 2.77 behind my T5, it was fine, maybe a little laboured at 100 in 5th. When i went to the 2.92, it meant it got off the line better, and cruising in 5th at 100 meant unless i really wanted to get going quickly, I could leave it in 5th to overtake without issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, deankdx said:

2.77 and 2.92 are almost no different (5%) @Panko was having enough issues to change his from 2.77 to 2.92 with the T5, 

i've kept the 2.77 in most cases and not had any issues (shuddering i think on take off the main complaint i think)

that's with stock cams etc that work very well at low revs.(1800 ish at 100kmh) difference for Me though is no fuel saving was made going from 2.77 in the 4 speed at 2250rpm to 1800rpm in 5th with the T5 .. only difference was less engine noise. 

 

Had a 4 speed XE years ago that I changed from 3.32?? I think to a 2.77 which was brilliant. Hiway at 100k revving 2250 just into the power band, no need to change down for overtakes and damned good economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Panko said:

So yes i drove around for a long time with the 2.77 behind my T5, it was fine, maybe a little laboured at 100 in 5th. When i went to the 2.92, it meant it got off the line better, and cruising in 5th at 100 meant unless i really wanted to get going quickly, I could leave it in 5th to overtake without issue. 

I am thinking that the only 5% change in ratio makes all the difference.

If I go with the T5 it will only be worth it if I go the whole hog and put the 2.92 rear end in. Extra benefits will be LSD and disc brakes.

 

If I was to do that I would also fit the full lowered King springs I have and buy a set of Bilstein shocks which would bring the car to mechanical ESP specs and make a very cruisy XE.

 

Wot think ye??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cisco said:

I am thinking that the only 5% change in ratio makes all the difference.

If I go with the T5 it will only be worth it if I go the whole hog and put the 2.92 rear end in. Extra benefits will be LSD and disc brakes.

 

If I was to do that I would also fit the full lowered King springs I have and buy a set of Bilstein shocks which would bring the car to mechanical ESP specs and make a very cruisy XE.

 

Wot think ye??

 if you have a different cam in the engine it might not like doing low revs at 100kmh, a standard engine will be fine with it. (i think also will be fine with a 2.77 diff, i've had it many times due to what the car came with and me changing from auto to T5. Panko above has an EFI version of crossflow and may not have been as flexible with that ratio)

 

ESP springs were probably higher than king LOWs,  super low kings i found bump steered and bottomed out on the bump stops often, needing big bore shocks to control them in the front especially. 

Bilsteins should be a good shock, but i've never seen anyone fit them over KONI unless they were restoring an ESP. 

 

LSD with discs are good if you have a need for them,  if you are just cruising around it will make no difference at all, drum brakes work extremely well. all the utes had them right up to 1993, the hand brake works MUCH better on drums. 

LSD makes the diff stronger in My opinion(even the 2 pinion 25spline version)  i have never broken one, but i've broken many open centre diffs over the years. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right about the super lows. Had them in before, took em out, put in genuine Ford country pac. Looks and rides good on polished snow flakes an Bstone ecopias. Don't push em in the wet!! 😬

Again, thanks for replies, I am sticking with the way it is. Too much work for my old bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×