• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

240 Redblock 5-speed Gearbox Options in 2020

What have people been swapping in the 700/900 series as of late? As far as I know the Ford T5s dont fit right in the 700/900s and the CD009s are above what I want to spend
 
The jam on a grandpa series would be a V6 box with the V8 spacer stacked on top of the redblock adapter, with the Camaro extension housing and rail.

KLUDGE ALL THE THINGS.
 
Here is my jam, my 550 thousand mile 740 surf race wagoon turbo redblock with BMW Getrag 265 overdrive tranny.


https://www.stsmachininginc.com/col...dapter-plate-to-redblock-m46-m47-bellhousings



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5XDnAPbTkNk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
I found a Ford T5 that I'm going to look at this weekend. It supposedly came out of a mid-90's Mustang GT - about the time that Ford switched to the longer input shaft. I have seem measurements listed online for them listed as 182.6mm for the early Ford T5 vs. 199.9mm for the later measuring from the face of the trans. case to the end of the input shaft; can anyone confirm this? Worst case scenario is I have to get a shorter input shaft or shorten the one that's on there if it's the longer one.

Judging by the charts I have seen online the mid-90's Ford T5's had a 3.15 first gear, which to me seems doable for a slightly hopped up b23 engine and the 240's 3.31 rear gear.
 
3.35 first gear, no the V8s all had the shorter input. Read the tag for details on the overdrive gear. Also no, 3.31 is too tall.
 
Following! Yes, it’s definitely getting harder to find these old things. I’d love something more modern, as well.

Regarding the 3.31 rear end... If you want spritely performance, you’ll not like that combo. If you’re used to the M46, it’ll still be an improvement, but you’ll be using 4th gear more often because 5th is so tall. With the ‘83 B23, MS and an A cam, you should have a nice, torquey motor though. It could be fine, just not quick. A 3.73 could be a good overall match for a daily driver and the V8 box’s 3.35 1st and .68 5th if you don’t like it; and they’re readily available in all the later auto 240s that are so common.

That being said, you probably don’t actually have a 3.31 rear end... I think the ‘83 has a 3.91, which contributes to why you hate first gear so much. :) The V8 box will be nice.

Good luck and keep us updated!

Oh, ok the General Leif, I am pretty certain we’re running a 4 cylinder T5 clutch disc on our factory Volvo 8.5” pressure plate and flat flywheel.
 
Other than the nice, notchy shifts (from the Pro 5.0 shifter), I hated the T5 in my 245. It whined in gear and rattled on overrun, even after a complete rebuild. If you don't mind a noisy transmission, they're fine. If that's something that might bother you, then stay away.
 
3.35 first gear, no the V8s all had the shorter input. Read the tag for details on the overdrive gear. Also no, 3.31 is too tall.

So if the tag is missing then the only way to calculate the 1st gear ratio is to put it in first gear and turn the input shaft by hand and try to figure it out manually? Also, it does look like pretty much all the the Mustang V-8 T5's had high overdrive gears: something like .68 which seems like would really bog down the little Volvo 2.3. Sounds like I should pass on the above box if it truly is out of a V-8 Mustang (which I believe all the GT's were back then).

It's amazing to me that Ford used such low first gears in V-8 Mustangs as 3.35. My '78 Firebird with a 350 c.i. engine and a 3.23 rear gear Has a Borg Warner Super T-10 in it with a 2.64 first gear, and it's not at all hard to drive. It's nice to have a first gear I can actually use on the road while the car is moving. Seems like Ford could have gotten away with using a lot closer ratio gearboxes in their ponies.
 
Yes, most of them are .68 5th gears(with 3.35 1sts). The T5Z transmission has close ratios with a 2.95 1st and a .63 5th. You can get a “Sebring” 5th gear for that gearset and it becomes a .80, which is perfect for performance. That’s what we have in the General Leif with a 4.56 rear end and 23” tall tires. It’s a hoot!

That being said, yes, the .68 5th is not ideal, but I am sure you have a 3.91 rear which will make the .68 5th be almost EXACTLY the same as stock late model 5spd 240’s effective 5th gear ratio.

http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html
 
[...] I hated the T5 in my 245. It whined in gear and rattled on overrun, even after a complete rebuild. If you don't mind a noisy transmission, they're fine. If that's something that might bother you, then stay away.
What you describe would almost certainly bother me. Well-tuned ears. I vastly prefer smooth and quiet.

So, it's worth adding another data point to your post: I've driven 2 different V8 T5 transmissions and not heard any problems... including 1/4 million daily driver miles in an almost-stock Mustang. (My only modification was quieter mufflers, so I could enjoy road trips more.)

Also no, 3.31 [rear end] is too tall.

Agreed, for a 4 cylinder. But for a V8 that would work really well. In fact, all the gear ratios felt just about right, to me... Perhaps I would have felt differently if I had been racing it.
 
Is there a chart or formula somewhere on the web for calculating the best transmission gear ratios for the engine power you have or are planning to have, your rear axle ratio, and carrying the weight you estimate your car to be? All I can find is stuff about rear axle gear ratios.

3.35 first gear still seems a bit low to me for a V-8 powered car unless you have a super high rear axle ratio - like in the 2.something area. My guess is a lot of car manufacturers used the really low first gears to accommodate drivers with various skills at driving stickshifts. It's easier to drive a car with a really low first without killing the engine when starting from a complete stop for inexperienced or unskilled drivers not used to operating a clutch.

Re 4 cylinder cars: My '77 Vega has a 4-speed in it with a 3.50 first gear and a fairly high rear gear such as a 3.08 which was a very common ration GM used the late '70's, even in the little H-bodies. I own another GM 4-speed with a 3.11 first gear that has the H-body torque tube tailshaft housing on it, so for all I know they might have been used as well in Vegas. Of course the difference between the Vega and the 240 is the Vega is quite a bit lighter and more streamlined in shape, so that could account for why GM could use those gear ratios even though the 2.3 liter engines in Vegas weren't very powerful stock like the Volvo 2.3's.
 
Other than the nice, notchy shifts (from the Pro 5.0 shifter), I hated the T5 in my 245. It whined in gear and rattled on overrun, even after a complete rebuild. If you don't mind a noisy transmission, they're fine. If that's something that might bother you, then stay away.
I worked on quite a few as a ford tech from 85 through 89, Then as a gm tech until 92, i think. They can definitely be good transmissions.
I built one for a guy running 12 second ETs in a 95 mustang with nitrous. I hand-filed the 2nd and 3rd gear synchro guides in that one.

Is there a chart or formula somewhere on the web for calculating the best transmission gear ratios for the engine power you have or are planning to have, your rear axle ratio, and carrying the weight you estimate your car to be? All I can find is stuff about rear axle gear ratios.

3.35 first gear still seems a bit low to me for a V-8 powered car unless you have a super high rear axle ratio - like in the 2.something area. My guess is a lot of car manufacturers used the really low first gears to accommodate drivers with various skills at driving stickshifts. It's easier to drive a car with a really low first without killing the engine when starting from a complete stop for inexperienced or unskilled drivers not used to operating a clutch.

Re 4 cylinder cars: My '77 Vega has a 4-speed in it with a 3.50 first gear and a fairly high rear gear such as a 3.08 which was a very common ration GM used the late '70's, even in the little H-bodies. I own another GM 4-speed with a 3.11 first gear that has the H-body torque tube tailshaft housing on it, so for all I know they might have been used as well in Vegas. Of course the difference between the Vega and the 240 is the Vega is quite a bit lighter and more streamlined in shape, so that could account for why GM could use those gear ratios even though the 2.3 liter engines in Vegas weren't very powerful stock like the Volvo 2.3's.

My 73 vega had a saginaw 4 speed and 3.08s, i hated it unless cruising steady. A buddy had a 72 wagon with the opel trans and a 3.36. I liked that combo.
 
I haven't driven my Vega since the late 1980's when I sold it. I really liked that car back then, so when I found it sitting in a salvage yard while I was looking for parts for a customer's Chevelle I couldn't resist buying it back. I have been so bogged down with restoring vehicles for customers and working on my Firebird and Volvo that I haven't had much of a chance to get it running again. The gas tank rusted out sitting for so long so I have to replace that first since the Vega, like the 240, had an in tank fuel pump. In fact I believe they might have used the same model in tank pump.
 
Regarding the T5 I called about that I was thinking about taking a look at, I got the tag number from the owner of it and it apparently came out of a '99-2005 Mustang with a V-6. These T-5's were supposedly identical to the '94-95 Mustang GT T5s except they had an electronic speedometer. Unfortunately that means they have the .68 overdrive gear so they can't be realistically used in a 4 cyl 240. I'd say if someone was doing an V-8 swap into a 240 this would be a good choice since these seem to be about the most readily available OEM T5s available right now.

I may just turn my attention to finding a 2.3 Mustang T5 - even though I don't like the super low 1st gear - or see about finding some other swap option. It's too bad transmission swap options are so limited for the 240 with the stock engine.
 
Other than the nice, notchy shifts (from the Pro 5.0 shifter), I hated the T5 in my 245. It whined in gear and rattled on overrun, even after a complete rebuild. If you don't mind a noisy transmission, they're fine. If that's something that might bother you, then stay away.

They shift wonderfully and normally, are quiet. I've had several Fords with T5s in them. I've also had a GM T5 that was a very noisy one.
 
Unfortunately that means they have the .68 overdrive gear so they can't be realistically used in a 4 cyl 240.
Well, that’s very debatable. I’m starting to lean that direction but keep the 3.73 rear end as it’s a taller first than the M47, but also a taller 5th so I get both things I want. Well, ideally I’d have 6 gears, but I feel this is a decent compromise. http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=357250
 
I have a T5 in my 240 with the 0.68 5th gear. It is a good highway gear with the 3.91 rear. Worked fine with a n/a 8v setup. I don’t mind shifting down a gear for longer hills on the hwy.
 
Back
Top