262, 265, T5, M90

[phillazenby740t]

I have been searching and have found, as power capacity the following ratings

Getrag 262: Unknown
Getrag 265: Unknown
V8-T5: 300 lb/ft torque
m90: 260 lb/ft torque


Now i have done some research, about 5 hours worth to try and see if any of these could stand a 400 hp setup and have come to the conclusion that if the getrag cant do it then a modified (race edition T5 would be necessary) I would like this thread to weigh the pros and cons of the various tranny swaps available to us volvo guys . Feel free to include the supra W55 in the discussion.

[MrBill]

4cylnder torque does not equal v8 toruqe

A tranny breaks when you drop that cluch, where v8s are putting all their torque down.
A 4 banger is putting half it down, till the turbo kicks in. Any v8 t-5 will handle the power just fine.
No one on this board has broken one yet (i dont think)
hell, one of the v8 guys has his turbo 302 with a stock t-5 putting out 500 v8 torques

=

[Tabor]

Originally Posted by 740ATL

Some short time in the future I will be acquiring a T5 in order to rip it apart and learn how to work on it. I think volvorod85 posted his T5 pics some time back and it looks fairly straightforward to work on.

The T5 is the only transmission on this list that you can expect to rebuild in your garage.

[phillazenby740t]

Originally Posted by 740ATL

I think T-bricks lore puts the getrag at 400lb-ft.

Where do you ultimately want to go with the car? In terms of swap difficulty, they're all on-par.

The T5 can be built very strong... moreover, I woudl imagine the parts can be sourced cheaper than the M90 or getrag... (If I'm wrong, please tell me)....

I've been driving the 265 getrag for a bunch of months now with a 3.73 and 3.90 rear end, and I'm not crazy about it in terms of gear ratios... don't get me wrong, the price was right in terms of piecing the swap together and it could be done on roughly $150 increments, but if I had to do it again, I'd go T5 as the gear ratio choices are out there.

Some short time in the future I will be acquiring a T5 in order to rip it apart and learn how to work on it. I think volvorod85 posted his T5 pics some time back and it looks fairly straightforward to work on.

Mike

EDIT... and getrags have been broken. Morely cracked one in half IIRC.

Well im looking for a 3.5-7k powerband. Around 400hp, we shall see about torque when the dyno sheets get there, Im assuming around 340. I was first going to go with the getrag but ive been hearing alot of good on the T5 thus the current thread. Thought it would be a good idea to discuss this as I have not yet found a thread weighing all the options for trans swaps

You say youre not a big fan of the ratios in your 265? Too short, too long, which ratios would you be looking for in the T5?

About getrags being broken and T5's not, i think the ratio of getrag swaps vs. T5 swaps on tbricks might justify the discrepancy

[Tabor]

Originally Posted by phillazenby740t

Now i have done some research, about 5 hours worth to try and see if any of these could stand a 400 hp setup and have come to the conclusion that if the getrag cant do it then a modified (race edition T5 would be necessary).

One of the 330lb/ft T5s should take 400hp as long as you aren't launching too hard.

[MrBill]

Originally Posted by Tabor

One of the 330lb/ft T5s should take 400hp as long as you aren't launching too hard.

but when you launch a turbo car you arent making 400 hp!
edit: unless you have a crazy launch control, but good luck getting that to the ground in 1st

[phillazenby740t]

Originally Posted by Tabor

One of the 330lb/ft T5s should take 400hp as long as you aren't launching too hard.

And should it fail, simply rebuild it I guess. The beauty of the getrag is i live net door to a place called euro parts in Aylmer. They are a JY carrying an infinite amount of volvo/bmw/merc parts for cheap (I know the owner)

[Hank Scorpio]

Originally Posted by 740ATL

I think T-bricks lore puts the getrag at 400lb-ft.

Where do you ultimately want to go with the car? In terms of swap difficulty, they're all on-par.

The T5 can be built very strong... moreover, I woudl imagine the parts can be sourced cheaper than the M90 or getrag... (If I'm wrong, please tell me)....

I've been driving the 265 getrag for a bunch of months now with a 3.73 and 3.90 rear end, and I'm not crazy about it in terms of gear ratios... don't get me wrong, the price was right in terms of piecing the swap together and it could be done on roughly $150 increments, but if I had to do it again, I'd go T5 as the gear ratio choices are out there.

Some short time in the future I will be acquiring a T5 in order to rip it apart and learn how to work on it. I think volvorod85 posted his T5 pics some time back and it looks fairly straightforward to work on.

Mike

EDIT... and getrags have been broken. Morely cracked one in half IIRC.

There ARE no rebuild parts for the m90 really. As much as "bolt on" appeals to me that almost completely rules it out for me. Plus their 2-3 (or 1-2) synchro's tend be a problem apparently).

I never seemed to phase my WC T5 and I threw all kinds of silly juvenile behavior towards it.

[phillazenby740t]

Originally Posted by MrBill

but when you launch a turbo car you arent making 400 hp!
edit: unless you have a crazy launch control, but good luck getting that to the ground in 1st

Dana 30 Eaton Truetrac, or if im feeling really rich i just might pick up one of Doug's 1200$ Dana 30 LSD's

Yeah putting that much instant torque to the ground would be a challenge but very doable with a good diff/tire/ chassis stiffness and suspension setup.

[MrBill]

Originally Posted by phillazenby740t

Dana 30 Eaton Truetrac, or if im feeling really rich i just might pick up one of Doug's 1200$ Dana 30 LSD's

Yeah putting that much instant torque to the ground would be a challenge but very doable with a good diff/tire/ chassis stiffness and suspension setup.

yeah maybe, but i really think a w/c t-5 will be JUST FINE.
Plus they are plentiful, seeing we are in the north american continent

=

[phillazenby740t]

Mike, i would just want to know what you 65mph cruising rpm is like with the getrag.

About the T5, it is looking more and more appealing, aside from the fact i hear v-performance are not the quickest at supplying the kits. Has anyone here attempted the hyd throut out bearing swap for the T5?

Im going with a better clutch regardless of what swap i get and will prolly end up buying a more powerful pp. I hear disengaging with the cable can be a real challenge on aftermarket pp's with the T5

Originally Posted by phillazenby740t

m90: 260 lb/ft torque

Try 450-500NM (330-370lb/ft).

Everyone that I know who is using the M90 in a powerful car, have over 450NM (330lb/ft).

The first M90 (M90L) from early '95 is strong but it will not stand up to much more than a M46 will though, but the '96-'98 gearboxes will handle a lot more. The M90L2 from '98 is the strongest of them, and I know one guy who has well over 500NM (370lb/ft) that is running one.

All the M90 gearboxes have a fragile 3rd gear though, and you will have to weld the stop-ring if you want to be able to shift into 3rd fast. The M90L2 doesn´t have very big problems with that, but it can happen on those as well.

[phillazenby740t]

Originally Posted by frpe82

Try 450-500NM (330-370lb/ft).

All the M90 gearboxes have a fragile 3rd gear though, and you will have to weld the stop-ring if you want to be able to shift into 3rd fast. The M90L2 doesn´t have very big problems with that, but it can happen on those as well.

My bad, those are the numbers i came across. As far as welding the stop ring, any side effects/downsides?

What about rotating mass and power efficiency, are any of these better/worse at chewing up torque?

[John V, outside agitator]

Originally Posted by 740ATL

Too too short. I might go so far as to source a 3.54 or 3.31 rear from the JY. 3rd and 4th are ok.

My brain starts to hurt after a while with the tall/short thing. Half the time I have to look up which one is which.... So I'm not going to be giving concrete answers... just what my gut tells me. I can post datalogs showing where I'm shifting at... if that would help.

I'm going to dig for volvorod85's thread showing the gutted T5...

On that note... does anyone have a good T5 parts source?

Mike

The easiest thing for those who refuse to listen to warnings of the Getrag ratios being as horrible as Volvo's ratios is to look at what the ORIGINAL CAR that used them had for axle ratio and what the motor made for torque.

I think you might find the Bowel Movement Wonders had like a 3.08 or even a 2.85 axle ratio.

That might be the easiest thing, if they are available: just slap in a ring and pinion.

But while discussing strength, that in all these trannies the first consideration is the distance between the two shafts; bigger is stronger..

The second and more critical thing is that strength in any given box is directly related to the ratio between what is here labeled "Main drive gear" and the cluster gear.
This is some old Chev 3 speed but the illustration will do.


REMEMBER! Gears are merely levers arrayed in a circle and when you have a "BIG" gear reduction like say 4:1, that is to say if you have slowed down speed by a ratio of 4 to 1, then you have multiplied the torque coming out the other end by 4 to 1.

So in a given box the first place reduction is done is from so called "main drive gear" or input shaft, down to the cluster gear.
That ratio is the only difference between the yummy 2.95 gearset and the more mundane 3.35 in the Ford V8 T-5s and the differnce is seen in the following chart; there is a direct relationship between the "drop gear ratio" and the torque capacity of the otherwise same box. See chart TORQUE RATING IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENGINE SIZE

1352- Year Model Engine V 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th R
114 Factory 85-86 T-Bird 2.3 T 235 4.03 2.37 1.49 1.00 0.81 3.76 6 7.41 0.59
115 Motorsport 79-83 Mustang 5.0 305 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 2.76 6 7.18 0.668 a
116 Factory 85-86 SVO 2.3 T 250 3.50 2.14 1.39 1.00 0.78 3.39 6 7.41 0.59
126 Factory 85 Mustang 5.0 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.68 3.15 7 7.18 0.668
141 Factory 86 Mustang 5.0 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.68 3.15 7 7.18 0.668
154 Factory 87 Mustang 2.3 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.85 3.70 7 7.41 0.59
155 Factory 87 T-Bird 2.3 T 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.79 3.70 6 7.41 0.59
162 Factory 87-88 Mustang 2.3 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.79 3.70 7 7.41 0.59
165 Factory 86 Mustang 5.0 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.68 3.15 7 7.18 0.668
169 Factory 86.5-89 Mustang 5.0 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.68 3.15 7 7.18 0.668
194 Factory 89-90 Mustang 2.3 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.79 3.70 7 7.41 0.59
199 Factory 90-91 Mustang 5.0 300 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.18 0.668 b
200 Motorsport 79-93 Mustang 5.0 305 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 a
202 Aftermarket 79-93 Mustang 5.0 305 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.80 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 c
204 Service 85-89 Mustang 5.0 300 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 7 7.18 0.668
207 Factory 91 Mustang 2.3 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.79 3.70 7 7.41 0.59
208 Factory 92-93 Mustang 5.0 300 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.18 0.668 d
209 Factory 92-93 Mustang 2.3 240 3.97 2.34 1.46 1.00 0.79 3.70 7 7.41 0.59
218 Factory 93 Mustang Cobra 310 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.18 0.668 e
219 Factory 94 Mustang 5.0 300 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.85 0.668
220 Factory 94 Mustang 3.8 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.73 3.15 7 7.85 0.668
225 Aftermarket 79-93 Mustang 5.0 325 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.80 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 b,c,d
227 Motorsport 79-93 Mustang 5.0 325 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 b,c,d,f
236 Factory 94 1/2 Mustang 3.8 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.73 3.15 7 7.85 0.668
238 Factory 94-97 Mustang 3.8 265 3.35 1.93 1.29 1.00 0.73 3.15 8 7.85 0.668
239 Aftermarket 93 Mustang Cobra 310 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.18 0.68 c,e
242 Factory 94-95 Mustang Cobra 5.0 310 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.85 0.668 e
246 Factory 94-95 Mustang 5.0 300 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.85 0.668
249 Motorsport 79-93 Mustang 5.0 330 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 e,g
251 Aftermarket 79-93 Mustang 5.0 330 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 2.76 7 7.18 0.668 c,e
253 Aftermarket 94-95 Mustang Cobra 5.0 310 3.35 1.99 1.33 1.00 0.68 3.15 8 7.85 0.668 c,e

And of course the same applies to the Getrags as well.
The real ones that Ford, Volvo and BMW all used for roadracing with 2.3 first gears had way more torque capapcity that the street ones with their horrid 3.97 firsts.

An exceelent resource for T5 parts and service in the East is Hanlon Motorsports in Pennsylvania.

Originally Posted by phillazenby740t

My bad, those are the numbers i came across. As far as welding the stop ring, any side effects/downsides?

What about rotating mass and power efficiency, are any of these better/worse at chewing up torque?

I don´t know how well the M90 stands up to other gearboxes like the T5´s and stuff, but it is pretty efficient I guess.

Originally Posted by John V, outside agitator

The easiest thing for those who refuse to listen to warnings of the Getrag ratios being as horrible as Volvo's ratios is to look at what the ORIGINAL CAR that used them had for axle ratio and what the motor made for torque.

I think you might find the Bowel Movement Wonders had like a 3.08 or even a 2.85 axle ratio.

That might be the easiest thing, if they are available: just slap in a ring and pinion.

But while discussing strength, that in all these trannies the first consideration is the distance between the two shafts; bigger is stronger..

The second and more critical thing is that strength in any given box is directly related to the ratio between what is here labeled "Main drive gear" and the cluster gear.
This is some old Chev 3 speed but the illustration will do.


REMEMBER! Gears are merely levers arrayed in a circle and when you have a "BIG" gear reduction like say 4:1, that is to say if you have slowed down speed by a ratio of 4 to 1, then you have multiplied the torque coming out the other end by 4 to 1.

So in a given box the first place reduction is done is from so called "main drive gear" or input shaft, down to the cluster gear.
That ratio is the only difference between the yummy 2.95 gearset and the more mundane 3.35 in the Ford V8 T-5s and the differnce is seen in the following chart; there is a direct relationship between the "drop gear ratio" and the torque capacity of the otherwise same box. See chart TORQUE RATING IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENGINE SIZE


And of course the same applies to the Getrags as well.
The real ones that Ford, Volvo and BMW all used for roadracing with 2.3 first gears had way more torque capapcity that the street ones with their horrid 3.97 firsts.

An exceelent resource for T5 parts and service in the East is Hanlon Motorsports in Pennsylvania.

True... knowing what I know now, I'm sure the 'now' self could easily talk the 'prior' self into going with something with better ratios.... but the getrag was the right choice for the time as it could be pieced together over several months at $150 increments... :sighs:

I think I saw the torque capacity demonstrated in action a few weeks ago on "MusclecarTV"... where Louis Santiago showed a 4.88 ring and pinion side by side with a 3.31 ring and pinion and I didn't realize how much more massive the 3.31 gears were. I'm guessing it's the same size-strength relationship between the 3.97/3.35/2.95 gears, correct?

I did some searching today and found a great T5 rebuild article on www.fordmuscle.com http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...uild/index.php

They used a "g-force" T5 street kit. http://www.gforcetransmissions.com/tran_gt-5.asp http://www.gforcetransmissions.com/pdfs/PricingT-5.pdf Looks like $1000 gets you something that'll handle 500ft-lbs... with the 2.95 first gear.

I guess I was under the faulty impression that you could get any gear ratio you wanted to build a cluster... but it looks like they all have the same 2.95 1.94 1.34 1.00 0.63 pattern.

Is this pattern recommended/suitable for something like a 200-400hp redblock with a 3000rpm torque peak? what about a 4000rpm torque peak?

I imagine the same/similar parts are/may be available for the getrags but I have no clue as to where in the stratosphere they'd land.

[Hank Scorpio]

Originally Posted by 740ATL

Too too short. I might go so far as to source a 3.54 or 3.31 rear from the JY. 3rd and 4th are ok.

Really? I LOVED my WC T5 (mustang) with 3.91 rear. Great rpm for cruising down the freeway and I never ever felt like any gear spacing was to big or to narrow. This was a solid 4-7k rpm powerband car as well.

eh... it may be the 255 50 15 tires... just feels like it's not in the right gear... cruising at 70 is 3500rpm...

I may get used to it, but it just doesn't feel right at the moment...

however... and this is where the turbobricker content comes to play... it hasn't had a working tach or speedometer since megasquirted it... so it may just be a mental thing.

I fixed that this weekend... imagine... a working tach and speedometer...

[qwkswede]

I may have a somewhat different perspective because of where I live. But I feel the BMW 265 first gear, 3.8ish ratio, is not a bad thing to have. I'm running a 3.73 manual trans Volvo rear axle. And it works out just fine. Turbo volvos, especially 16v ones are just so dang doggy off boost that I would be stalling the motor, and having trouble getting up steep driveways without slipping the hell out of the clutch without somewhat of a "granny" first gear. Furthermore, If I launch the car like Kenny Bernstein from a light, 1st gear carries me to about 35-40mph when I shift at about 6500rpm. That seems OK to me. I shift to second and drop down to about 3500 rpm, and even my laggy high altitude motor makes boost there. Turbo motors have nice fat torque bands if the turbo isn't absolutely HUGE. They can pull those long spaces between gears just fine in a street car, and I'd really hate to be without something like a tractor 1st gear in a 4 cylinder motor on the street. Just my opinion. I personally like the Getrag for its strength and nice shifting. The thing I don't like about mine is that it is a noisy SOB. I'll probably have one rebuilt and tightened up someday. But for now its just working fine. The T5 isn't a bad option though.

[945ti]

The M90 is sort of an accident really. It uses many of the pieces of the M56H. The 3 shaft layout is mostly desired for FWD cars where you want the box to be short of packaging and turning radius reasons. Such a design isn't really popular in RWD land unless you already have the parts pile lying about. Such said, the M56H ratios are pretty decent on N/A 850s. Expensive though and the M90L has ****ty ratios and is kinda weak. If you feel like spending $1100 for a still somewhat weak gearbox with questionable ratios, no aftermarket for your 700 before you even buy a clutch, fine. It is bolt in, early 850 NAs have pretty nice ratios.

The getrag shifts beautifully if it has been rebuilt ever. That is the one thing I love about it, and the shift linkage/driveshaft works out very very well for a 700 series that I have it in. Otherwise, the ratios are garbage and the idle rattle is really irritating, even if there is nothing "wrong" with the gearbox. It works well in my DD 945T with 3.31 gears.

The T5 is cheap and if you have a 240 in the USA, unless you want more power or some such I can't see why you wouldn't use it. Shift quality is subjective, but I hate the way most T5s shift. To me, buttery feels right in your DD and mechanical+grouchy+direct feels right for a mullet machine. T5s are commonly available with common parts. With the 2.95-.73 ratio spread and a 4.10 rear end with shortish tires I think it would be lovely in a 240. 1st works about the same with a 4.10 gearset as my getrag 3.8:1 1st and my 3.31 axle.

[klr142]

Originally Posted by 945ti

Such said, the M56H ratios are pretty decent on N/A 850s.

The ratios may be ok, but the final drive gearing is waaaaaaaaaay too tall. Those things feel like bigger dogs than they are because the gearing's so tall.

[945ti]

Originally Posted by klr142

The ratios may be ok, but the final drive gearing is waaaaaaaaaay too tall. Those things feel like bigger dogs than they are because the gearing's so tall.

True, but in the land of RWD such things are fairly easy to change to a nice 3.73-4.56 final drive as found on 240s. Or 3.73-4.10 as very commonly found on 700s. I wasn't really considering the 850/transaxle casing into the equation as anything but a donor.

[phillazenby740t]

Originally Posted by 945ti

True, but in the land of RWD such things are fairly easy to change to a nice 3.73-4.56 final drive as found on 240s. Or 3.73-4.10 as very commonly found on 700s. I wasn't really considering the 850/transaxle casing into the equation as anything but a donor.

+1 The beauty of rwd is you get to pick your ratio and change it relatively easily if youre dissatisfied. Well im glad to see opinions vary on the subject. According to what i hear i would probably go with a getra 265 over the t5, seems to be an easier bolt on, and both standars mustang 5.0's ive had the chance to take for a spin had buttery shifting, i like mine crisp and honda like. I think i will get that feel more with the getrag than the T5.

Is there an article on the getrag swap, ive seen the one for the supra w55, the T5 but only semi threads on the getrag.

About the 1st gear being long, i would have to agree with qwkswede that it can be handy on a dd, especially when riding a 4 puck ceramic race clutch, not easy to do