40 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: Borg Warner T-5 speed install  (Read 32421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 1oldtimer

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • FeedBack: +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Motor

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Mobile User Windows User
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2014, 08:10:21 PM »
I called Pintony today & found out the clutch disc is for a non-turbo '87 Mustang with a 2.3L engine.
 
He also said that anyone thinking of putting a T-5 behind a bone stock 2.0L was making a huge mistake. The stock engine won't pull 5th gear. I was planning to use it behind my built 2.0 but even at 115-120 HP its not gonna pull hard in 5th. I'm just warning anyone before they waste the time, effort & money trying to run it behind a 70 HP stocker.

What mods have you done to get to the 115-120hp. I'm trying to get an idea of what will a target hp, is 150-175 or even 200 way out of line for a N/A street driven car. I see the GM 3.0 (181 boat motor, derived from the 153 Nova motor) getting 140hp out of the box.......and the 153 getting 120 hp.
'72 2.0 in a '28 Ford.

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #91 on: November 13, 2014, 12:18:19 AM »
The issue isn't horsepower, it's torque.  You need enough of it in a "driving" RPM range (Idle to about 3,000 RPM) for everyday general driving. Horsepower is just a result of the torque at a given RPM.

 You can build a 200 HP 2.0 but it will likely have to wind it up towards 8,000 RPM to get those numbers. And if you did that the torque in the "driving" RPM's would be worse than stock.  I have a friend who builds race engines and he has stated that, "You can only get so much torque out of a given bore/stroke combination. The only way to increase HP is to increase the RPM."  And note that when you shift the torque upwards you lose it on the lower end.

I only briefly had a 2.0 / Auto. I installed 225-60-16" tire which would have been similar to running with an overdrive trans ratio. The car was "pedestrian" to start with 13" tire and the 16" put it in the "walker" catagory.

You could effectively run the 5 speed with the right tire/rearend ratios. And you might actually set it up for a very mild overdrive (compared to what you have now). BUT, 1st  gear would probably be negated as it would hit "granny" status.

I also notice that the '87 Mustang T-5 was listed as a .85 (vs the .78-.81 listed for other years).  Frankly though it is a mote point without considering the trans ratios, the rear ratio and the tire circumference.

Run your current trans, rearend and tires through a calculator.  See what the RPM @ driving speeds are.  Then do the same with the desired components. Observe the RPM drop. If it is minor then the 5 speed will not offer much advantage. If it is a lot you likely lack the torque to pull the load.

 In any case you would need to be building the 2.0 for torque in the stated idle to 3,000 RPM range. I doubt any power increase equipment available is slanted in that direction.  In fact the stock engine is likely doing that in its natural state now.

Offline oldkayaker

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
  • FeedBack: +113/-0
  • Gender: Male

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Windows User Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #92 on: November 13, 2014, 10:22:32 AM »
Wittsend, I do not understand it but the torque can be changed without changing bore or stroke.  The 71 2000cc had 120 ft-lbs while the 72 2000cc had 103 ft-lbs.   The compression was lowered from the 71's 9:1(8.6:1 per Ford manual) to 8.2:1 in 72.   Per the Ford manuals, the cams have the same specs but I suspect some tuning changes were made too.  Click on the "detailed specs" link in the links below to see the compression ratio numbers.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/pinto/pinto_2-door_sedan/1971.html
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/pinto/pinto_2-door_sedan/1972.html

1oldtimer, as far increasing the NA output of the 2000cc, there are some old magazine build articles linked on the PCCA page here.  Go to "Community" at top and then to "Extended Community".    The article links will be on the lower left side.  For more complete builds, David Vizard wrote a good book on the 2000cc engine, see link below.  For some reason clicking on the link below does not work but copying and pasting the entire link seems to work.
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=&lang=en&isbn=0-89586-365-0&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #93 on: November 13, 2014, 10:55:00 AM »
Hi Jerry,
  Remember that my friend is building racing engines. A stock engine leaves a lot on the table.  So, he is basically stating after everything else has been exhausted you hit a ceiling of the torque you get out of a specific displacement.  This is also related to currently available equipment and build concepts at any given point in time. Obviously future development has the potential for increase.

 Since HP is factored around torque and RPM to get the HP number higher (at the torque ceiling) the torque has to be shifted to the higher RPM.

He is not some "want to be" engine builder. He did development work for Shelby, built the engine for a record holding Bonneville car and has been in magazine engine building shoot outs.  http://www.mitechengines.com/history.htm

My main point to 1oldtimer is that his search for total HP to overcome the 2.0 deficiency with a T-5 was not the solution.  The solution was to get maximum torque (or at least an acceptable amount) in the "driving" range that the T-5 would typically be used in.  My apology if I caused any confusion.

I also don't mean to contest Pintony who has obviously tried the T-5 with a 2.0. But, in his case we do not know the tire size, the rear ratio, the final ratio in 5th gear (could be anywhere from .78 to .85).  If (and I do mean IF because we don't know) he had 15"-16" tires, 3.00 rear gears, the .78 trans and a motor modified that had the torque curve moved higher that might account for the issues. On the other hand if he had 13" tires, 3.55 gears, .85 trans and a basically stock motor  (decent torque in the driving range) - and then the car still couldn't handle the overdrive then for sure I would not advise the T-5 either.

Offline Jerry merrill

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • FeedBack: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #94 on: November 13, 2014, 07:39:12 PM »
I have a 2.3 in my 71 with the t-5 and 355 gears and the 5 speed works great. I only have a ranger header and stock roller cam. Some times I run in 5th in town over 45 mph. Yes if you come to a steep hill you will have to downshift but it works great. Might be different if you have less rear gear than 355

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Borg Warner T-5 speed install
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2014, 10:50:20 PM »
"Effective" gearing is something I touched on in my build thread in the turbo forum.

With 23.9" tires and 3.55 gears, my car has gearing equivalent to 3.94 gears in the Thunderbird my trans came from. 3.94 is pretty steep for that driveline. I can take off in second gear like it's first. To functionally match the gearing that the donor Thunderbird had, I would only need a 3.12 rear end ratio.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.