Jump to content
Fargone

Looking for A833 Transmission installation photos

Forum Sponsored By  

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, ggdad1951 said:

I might be done eating the popcorn soon and have to start moderating.....

 

If I were to add to this thread you would really have some moderating to do. 😇 So I will keep my keyboard silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is bemusing how some folks get their hackles up over the A833 vs T5 vs other transmissions debate.  I just don't get it...

 

Fargone, thanks so much for posting photos of the A833 swap.  it's always great to see what you might be getting  yourself into with a job like this.

 

What tire size and rear gear ratio do you plan to use?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, the "fun" must stop.  Be respectful of each other, use proper etiquette, don't belittle names, etc.  You can disagree, but stop the petty crap or I'll just delete posts that cross a line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Old CWO said:

It is bemusing how some folks get their hackles up over the A833 vs T5 vs other transmissions debate.  I just don't get it...

 

 

 

It is strange indeed....the Borg Warner company, maker of the T5's has been an independent maker of automotive drive train parts for nigh on a century  and is yet very successful.  They build to makers specs...and the only thing that makes one of their products 'oriented' and because of their excellent products and the fact that Chrysler was not in the market to build and man a special new wing to their already large holding, that when Chrysler engineers developed the over drive they asked Borg-Warner to do make the unit and allowed them to market it to the competitors.  I am sure it marketing strategy paid off for ole Walter in either reduces cost to him or kick backs...don't know that story.  GM closed down the Muncie operation years ago and put a town out of work basically. (now buys BW stuff)  In steps Chrysler again with the idea to open the machine works, machines in place, experienced workers in the locale.  So with the Chrysler design, GM owned buildings, the New Venture comes on line and both companies benefit and a town is back in the money so to speak...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Plymouthy Adams said:

 

It is strange indeed....the Borg Warner company, maker of the T5's has been an independent maker of automotive drive train parts for nigh on a century  and is yet very successful.  They build to makers specs...and the only thing that makes one of their products 'oriented' and because of their excellent products and the fact that Chrysler was not in the market to build and man a special new wing to their already large holding, that when Chrysler engineers developed the over drive they asked Borg-Warner to do make the unit and allowed them to market it to the competitors.  I am sure it marketing strategy paid off for ole Walter in either reduces cost to him or kick backs...don't know that story.  GM closed down the Muncie operation years ago and put a town out of work basically. (now buys BW stuff)  In steps Chrysler again with the idea to open the machine works, machines in place, experienced workers in the locale.  So with the Chrysler design, GM owned buildings, the New Venture comes on line and both companies benefit and a town is back in the money so to speak...

Seroiusly Tim, nobody denies tgat B&W makes great transmissions.

In fact mine is a T98.

Why are you constantly taking threads into a different agenda?

While I see nothing wrong with your info above, it does not belong on this man's thread.

Fargone created this thread to document and illustrate his A833 swap, kudos to him.

Why not let him and others continue with this theme?

Geesh I do not see much or any threads dedicated to your builds.

In fact why dont you create a few build threads, they would no doubt be helpful to those who wish to do similar things.

GGdad I couldn't agree more enough of this nonsense on here. Could you please edit any of the posts not conducive to the theme and goodwill of Fargones thread, that includes any of my posts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't spend the time editing posts.  I'm pretty sure EVERYONE here knows what is across the line.  I think we ALL are big enough kids to go back, read our own posts and edit to meet community standards.  I suggest that as the course of action to take, if not, I'm just gonna nuke posts and all the info traded will be gone.  PLAY NICE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 5:31 AM, 55 Fargo said:

Have you bolted up the A833 yet?

Does the bearing retainer fit with your truck bell?

Or have you not mocked it up yet?

So I had a lot of fun / difficulty getting my transmission into my truck and now I know why. The hole in the adapter plate for the transmission snout is a few thousands too small.  I checked the clutch plate for correct splines and fit, I test fit the plate to my bell housing, but I never slipped the plate onto the transmission to make sure it slid on freely. It did not. Once I pried the trans out and removed the plate it was quick task to resize the plate with an air grinder. It was a very small amount of material to remove, but now she slides right on like butter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2019 at 5:41 PM, nkeiser said:

My pickup doesn't have the same crossmember that your's does, so I didn't have that issue. There were lots of other "opportunities" along the way though. The transmission mounting bolts are 9/16", so I had to modify the adapter plate and find some place that had 9/16 bolts. I had to order a bronze bushing to account for the input shaft and throw out bearing diameter differences https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IG7PONW/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1  I mentioned the linkage issue, but that could have been solved if I would have found OEM linkage instead of after market. All of the information and websites that have parts for Hurst shifters cater to after market and don't deal with OEM which of course are all unique.

 

I enjoy fabrication, so I had fun tweaking the shifter to fit. It still needs some work as it has a little slop and can be a knuckle buster going to third.

image.png.7975660427281b9d3611ff17d9bf5960.pngimage.png.edb1ffd0342bcdbf598ca5ac47fdb092.png

Thanks for the info on the Isostatic Industries AA-1715-3 P/M SLEEVE 1.254 X 1.753 X 3 bushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2019 at 3:52 PM, Old CWO said:

It is bemusing how some folks get their hackles up over the A833 vs T5 vs other transmissions debate.  I just don't get it...

 

Fargone, thanks so much for posting photos of the A833 swap.  it's always great to see what you might be getting  yourself into with a job like this.

 

What tire size and rear gear ratio do you plan to use?  

I've swapped in a 96 Jeep Cherokee diff. I cant recall the exact ratio but I believe it's around 3.73 or 3.54.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Ford 9" with 3.73 behind my A833. In my limited highway driving so far, third gear gets it up to speed just fine (60-65 mph). However, overdrive has no acceleration. It'll maintain speed on flat ground, but it won't gain any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the math I think you guys with A833s and new rear ends are running way too high of rear end gears.  The common stock configuration was about a 28" tall tire with 4.10 ring and pinion; fine around town but definitely no fun at modern freeway speeds.  With a 1:1 final drive the modern axles with 3.55 or 3.73 indeed kills some highway RPM but that comes at the cost of low end performance. Since the A833 trans has essentially the exact same ratios in 1 through 3 as the original transmissions there is no difference at the  bottom end. It's still going to be slow at launch with the taller rear end.  Once you shift to OD, the final drive drops to around 2.52:1 (3.55 x .71.) This is of course going to be frustrating behind a 100 HP engine as it doesn't have enough mojo to keep the truck moving geared like that.  So now you have the worst of both worlds:  It's gutless all the time.

 

With deeper ring and pinion gearing you get back to stock performance off the line while keeping a very favorable OD situation. For example, 4.56 x .71 = 3.23:1 final drive.  That's still less highway RPM than a non OD transmission with 3.55s.

 

Basically what I'm suggesting is take full advantage of your OD gear; dump the rear gears low enough so that your OD highway RPM is about 2200-2600 at 65 MPH with whatever tire you are running.  The truck's overall performance will be a night and day difference.  Yes, you may be shifting 1-2 at about 12-14 MPH.   Making  that first shift 30 seconds sooner is more than worth it.  

 

If you want to play around with the gear ratio, speed and RPM numbers, this website is awesome:

 

http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CWO,  That is exactly why my planned installation is an a833 with the original, (I think, 4.10) in my '56PU.  And, with the 3.09 first, it will make starting a trailer much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kencombs said:

CWO,  That is exactly why my planned installation is an a833 with the original, (I think, 4.10) in my '56PU.  And, with the 3.09 first, it will make starting a trailer much easier.

 

Keep the rear tire diameter to 28" or less and I am positive you will have an enjoyable driving truck with that combo.  Pretty much every four cylinder 5 speed small truck through the 80s and 90s had about a 13.5:1 first gear final ratio and cruised 65 MPH around 2500 RPM.  They were never hot rods but legions of Ranger/S-10 fans would probably agree it was more than serviceable for a daily driven light duty pickup truck. Our trucks are similar in the power to weight ratio as those so I don't see any reason why they would be much different with the right gearing.

 

Unfortunately I am currently sporting 30" tires and 3.55 gears in my 4 speed truck - no bueno... There is a rebuilt 4.03:1 first gear T5 at my house waiting for installation this winter.  Hopefully fixes me right up!  If it's still unsatisfactory the ring and pinion can easily be changed to something in the 4s.  Years of being a Jeep guy taught me that you shouldn't "fear the gear."  It's okay to go a little on the low side if you have an overdrive transmission.  One of my favorite 4x4s was a 4 banger Jeep with 33s, AX5 5 speed and 4.88s.  It was an absolute blast off road and around town.  The only time you really knew it was under-powered was above 65 MPH which is faster than you should be driving a lifted Jeep anyway.  

 

Have fun with your truck Ken!

Share this post


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

 

Keep the rear tire diameter to 28" or less and I am positive you will have an enjoyable driving truck with that combo.  Pretty much every four cylinder 5 speed small truck through the 80s and 90s had about a 13.5:1 first gear final ratio and cruised 65 MPH around 2500 RPM.  They were never hot rods but legions of Ranger/S-10 fans would probably agree it was more than serviceable for a daily driven light duty pickup truck. Our trucks are similar in the power to weight ratio as those so I don't see any reason why they would be much different with the right gearing.

 

Unfortunately I am currently sporting 30" tires and 3.55 gears in my 4 speed truck - no bueno... There is a rebuilt 4.03:1 first gear T5 at my house waiting for installation this winter.  Hopefully fixes me right up!  If it's still unsatisfactory the ring and pinion can easily be changed to something in the 4s.  Years of being a Jeep guy taught me that you shouldn't "fear the gear."  It's okay to go a little on the low side if you have an overdrive transmission.  One of my favorite 4x4s was a 4 banger Jeep with 33s, AX5 5 speed and 4.88s.  It was an absolute blast off road and around town.  The only time you really knew it was under-powered was above 65 MPH which is faster than you should be driving a lifted Jeep anyway.  

 

Have fun with your truck Ken!

The 4 cyl S10 and Ranger were gutless low torque engines.

Fargone should be fine with 3.73 gears a long block flattie with tri carbs and split exhaust.

These engines attain max torque way down in the power band too.

Although these old trucks are not that heavy especially in the 108 wb versions there boxy. The S10 and Ranger were light little junk buckets too.

The A833 and a flattie you could go right on up to 4.11s it would be great off the line and in .71 overdrive it would vlimb just fine.

3.55s would be dicey.

Smaller tires on these trucks dont look right in most cases.

on the NWC S10 T5 with 4.03 1st and .86 5th that can work with gearing like 3.23. Gent I know has 32 Chrysler with 1952 251 4.03 T5 and 3.90 gears. He has to take off in 2nd most of the time.

Been in that car its up to 70 mph in no time flat.

Side note Reg Evans has a 52 Dodge with 251 truck 4 spd and Thunderbird diff with 3.0 gears. He cruises his area in the mountains of northern California going uphill with no issues.

There is a huge difference between a 218 and a 251 or 265 in power...

Edited by 55 Fargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 55 Fargo said:

The 4 cyl S10 and Ranger were gutless low torque engines. Stipulated

Fargone should be fine with 3.73 gears a long block flattie with tri carbs and split exhaust. Possibly; depends on tire size and expectations.  His carb setup sure is pretty and I bet it's going to be sweet!  He's doing a lot of really nice work on it and I look forward to seeing more pictures of it.  I really appreciate the pictures of the A833 swap - there weren't that many on the board before.

These engines attain max torque way down in the power band too. Stipulated

Although these old trucks are not that heavy especially in the 108 wb versions there boxy. The S10 and Ranger were light little junk buckets too.  Four banger Rangers tipped in at around 2900 lbs and 130 or so LB FT and probably a little more aerodynamic as they got newer.  So, all in all similar power to weight as a broad comparison to something more modern.  Junk bucket is an opinion which I will dispute. Fine little trucks when used as intended in my experience.  Nothing exciting but the Fords at least maintain a good reputation for economy and reliability.  As such, clean 2005-2011 Rangers still command a tidy sum on the second hand market where I live.  Almost Toyota levels of asking price.

The A833 and a flattie you could go right on up to 4.11s it would be great off the line and in .71 overdrive it would vlimb just fine.

3.55s would be dicey.  Concur, deeper gearing is usually better if you're sporting an OD trans. I have 3.55s and am currently unsatisfied.

Smaller tires on these trucks dont look right in most cases.  Opinion (that I share.)  Tire diameter is, however, a critical component of final gearing regardless of what size chosen.

on the NWC S10 T5 with 4.03 1st and .86 5th that can work with gearing like 3.23. Gent I know has 32 Chrysler with 1952 251 4.03 T5 and 3.90 gears. He has to take off in 2nd most of the time.  Been in that car its up to 70 mph in no time flat. 3.23 is probably awesome in a car with car sized tires.  Tall and heavy truck tires?  The math and experience say otherwise...

Side note Reg Evans has a 52 Dodge with 251 truck 4 spd and Thunderbird diff with 3.0 gears. He cruises his area in the mountains of northern California going uphill with no issues.  Reg and I are neighbors geographically.  I have spent quite a lot of time in his neck of the woods over the past 30 years.  Pulling hills in the Sierras at cruising speed with that combo means a lot of 3rd gear.  No biggie of course but possibly ticking off the vacationing Bay Area flat landers stuck behind you... (not something many Jefferson State folks worry about!)

There is a huge difference between a 218 and a 251 or 265 in power... Not in dispute.  But we're still talking about something in that 150 HP 220 TQ category.  Hardly setting the woods on fire.  Careful gear selection is still in order to keep up with modern traffic, at least down here.  I have only had the pleasure of visiting British Columbia so I can't speak for what's there in Manitoba. There is a well deserved reputation for Canadians being nice and friendly so even if there is traffic, I will assume your fellow drivers are easier to get along with then some of the chuckleheads here in the lower 48.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Old CWO said:

 

Thanx for your critique.

On Ford Rangers and Toyotas who gives a hoot as this is a Classic Dodge truck board.

Your engine and gear, tire combo arent great now it wont be that great with a T5 and smaller tires in .86 5th gear.

So you will be shifting back to 4th and 3rd too on steep grades.

What engine are you running? A 218 will not compare to built 230 or 250/265.

Reg did not mention running in 3rd up hills and keeping travellers piled up behind.

Good luck on your T5..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 11:02 AM, Fargone said:

I've swapped in a 96 Jeep Cherokee diff. I cant recall the exact ratio but I believe it's around 3.73 or 3.54.

 

Thanks for documenting your build, I can't wait to see the results of the first A833 trans swap, at least one that's been documented on this forum.

 

As others have said in regards to the rear end ratios, I think you will want a lower ratio as well. Considering the power output of the flattie, you'll want an overall final drive ratio of  around 12 to 13:1, in first gear.

 

In my truck (equipped with an OD) I believe the final ratio in first is about 13.5:1. That gets me up to about 10 - 15 mph but a quick start off the line. It works perfectly and I love driving it. Edit: From a performance perspective, I absolutely need this 1st gear for starting out. I can start out in 2nd but it's sluggish....

 

Edit: On the tall end of the gearing, I have 2.95 final drive ratio. Highway speeds I'm in the low 2k's for RPM. I can climb hills in OD as well. 230 w/ (2) 1bbl carbs.

 

"junk buckets" .... WTF, LOL!

Edited by John-T-53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 55 Fargo said:

 

On Ford Rangers and Toyotas who gives a hoot as this is a Classic Dodge truck board.

 

 

Discussions of power, weight, and reliability of potential transmissions swap candidates are perfectly applicable to this board. All three qualities and more should be discussed when talking about a particular transmission swap as it lends itself to suitability of its potential new home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 55 Fargo said:

Thanx for your critique.

On Ford Rangers and Toyotas who gives a hoot as this is a Classic Dodge truck board.

Your engine and gear, tire combo arent great now it wont be that great with a T5 and smaller tires in .86 5th gear.

So you will be shifting back to 4th and 3rd too on steep grades.

What engine are you running? A 218 will not compare to built 230 or 250/265.

Reg did not mention running in 3rd up hills and keeping travellers piled up behind.

Good luck on your T5..

 

 

warning meter 3 out of 5.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I considered the OD version of the a833 years ago when I was putting my 230 together.  Then I remembered a trip made in his wife's slant 6 Volare with OD.  We needed to go to Buffalo from Syracuse.  Jumped on I 90 Nys Thru way.  Mind you for most of that section the highway parrellels the NewYork Central RR famous Water Level Route that goes from NYC to Chicago.  Granted water runs down hill and Buffalo is marginally higher than Syracuse.  600 ft vs 425 to500, but come on man!  Against a slight head wind that car could not maintane 65mph in OD or even 55.  Needed to constantly be downshifted for even the slightest grades.  I don't know what the rear axle ratio was but it was not suited to the OD set up.  On the way back with a tail wind same story slight grade, downshift.

 

So I kept my 4.11 and added an r 10 last year.  Hope your set up suites your conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, greg g said:

I considered the OD version of the a833 years ago when I was putting my 230 together.  Then I remembered a trip made in his wife's slant 6 Volare with OD.  We needed to go to Buffalo from Syracuse.  Jumped on I 90 Nys Thru way.  Mind you for most of that section the highway parrellels the NewYork Central RR famous Water Level Route that goes from NYC to Chicago.  Granted water runs down hill and Buffalo is marginally higher than Syracuse.  600 ft vs 425 to500, but come on man!  Against a slight head wind that car could not maintane 65mph in OD or even 55.  Needed to constantly be downshifted for even the slightest grades.  I don't know what the rear axle ratio was but it was not suited to the OD set up.  On the way back with a tail wind same story slight grade, downshift.

 

So I kept my 4.11 and added an r 10 last year.  Hope your set up suites your conditions.

Greg,

So heres my question to you?

Whats the gear reduction on your R10?

A Volare is .73 with the A833.

Now many of those had 3.23 gears not a good choice with a lower HP engine 

Now your R10 is a great trans and choice.

But I think you will find tge overdrive reduction similar.

Some issues with an A833 coukd be with, weak low powered engines with the wrong final drive gearing.

As well some complain about 2nd to 3rd gear spread not optimal with the wrong gearing.

While I think your R10 is a great trans its final gear reduction aint much different than the A833 car trans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John-T-53 said:

 

Thanks for documenting your build, I can't wait to see the results of the first A833 trans swap, at least one that's been documented on this forum.

 

As others have said in regards to the rear end ratios, I think you will want a lower ratio as well. Considering the power output of the flattie, you'll want an overall final drive ratio of  around 12 to 13:1, in first gear.

 

In my truck (equipped with an OD) I believe the final ratio in first is about 13.5:1. That gets me up to about 10 - 15 mph but a quick start off the line. It works perfectly and I love driving it.

 

Edit: On the other end of the gearing, I have 2.95 final drive ratio. Highway speeds I'm in the low 2k's for RPM. I can climb hills in OD as well. 230 w/ (2) 1bbl carbs.

 

"junk buckets" .... WTF, LOL!

John whats your final gear ratio? Which NWC trans do you have and how heavy is your truck?

Well you should be able to climb at 2300 rpm.

The problem with nkeiser is his little 218 is a bit weak.

This is especially true with the truck A833 .71 overdrive 

Yup owned a few old early Rangers and 1 S10 4cyl. Not the greatest mechanical marvels the 1980 Ford Courier was the worst.

Your running a basic stock build 230 with dual carbs. While a lot better than a 218 might not be up to the task of a well built 265.

Share this post


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

 

Discussions of power, weight, and reliability of potential transmissions swap candidates are perfectly applicable to this board. All three qualities and more should be discussed when talking about a particular transmission swap as it lends itself to suitability of its potential new home.

Okay HRT lets talk about your current set-up, you bought Don Coatneys 48 Plymouth weight approximately 3100 lbs, rebuilt Desoto 251, with ASche dual carbs and exhaust, rest is stock build, and do not think the cam is anything over stock.

Now which T5 is it, the NWC with 3.76 1st gear and .72 overdrive reduction and a 3.54 rearend, as I seem to recall?

Now you have been posting, about highway trips cruising at 85 mph, you have any issues picking up speed in 5th gear over 60 mph?

The 251 and especially the 265, and especially a well built and tuned 265 will have a lot more grunt pushing up a hill than a little stock USA built 217.

The first gear in your trans is low, but not as bad as the earlier version, heck you must be shifting from 1st to 2nd really quick.

A local guy here has a 32 Chrysler with a 1952 251, 4.03 NWC T5 trans and 3.90 gears, and even with those super tall tires on his car, he takes off in 2nd gear most of the time, its way to low, especially with 3.90 gears. Those transmissions were designed for use with very light, low powered engines, now the later versions, and the Ford 5 litre Mustang and Camaros, used another type.

I really don't think Fargone is going to have any trouble with his tri carbed built 251 and 3.73 gears with a .73 gear reduction in overdrive, plus his foirst gear is 3.08 a heck of difference from 4.03 or 3.76

 

Edited by 55 Fargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the difference between .73 and. .70 really worth calculating? Just stating my experience with one particular car in one particular circumstance. It is purely anecdotal based on one observation.  It believe two gear ratios were available for 6 cylinder volares of the era 3.55 and 3.91.  my guess that the OD cars got the 3.91.  is it worth calculating the difference between 4.11 and 3.91?  Not getting wound up by a 50 to 70 rpm difference if it's even descernable without a tach. 

 

Just relating what was not a practable set up. I believe the flatheads may have more torque than the slant 6 in the similar cruise rpm range but don't know for sure.   As I said I hope the swap works for the conditions.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Terms of Use