T-5 @ 10 Bolt Haters
10-08-2005, 12:39 PM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-5 @ 10 Bolt Haters
Went to the track last night with the current set up (listed in sig). First time with this motor, will make another post about the run later after i get the video up in the organized racing section. But anyways stock World Class T-5 w about 180-190k miles on it. 10 bolt rear with richmond gears, mini spool, and a summit support cover, Hoosier QTP 26x11.5x15. Best run of an 11.1 @ 129mph w/ 1.74 60ft. Have plenty of people on here to vouch for me plus ill post the video. About 8 runs didnt miss a beat. Just wanted to post that up
GM you did a fine job on the T-5 n 10 bolt
GM you did a fine job on the T-5 n 10 bolt
10-08-2005, 05:29 PM
#2
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Columbus, In
Posts: 396
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 87 Camaro
Engine: 406
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 9" ford 35 spline axles
good to see my old mini spool held up.....nice time. almost in the 10"s with that stuff is very impressive.
10-08-2005, 06:02 PM
#3
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richlands N.C.
Posts: 574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '92 RS
Engine: 350 carb'd
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: 4.10
What are you '60. My T-5 and 10 bolt were ok untill I started leaving with some rpm's. BOOM, bye bye ring and pinion, 2 times.
10-09-2005, 03:19 AM
#4
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by likeenz24
good to see my old mini spool held up.....nice time. almost in the 10"s with that stuff is very impressive.
good to see my old mini spool held up.....nice time. almost in the 10"s with that stuff is very impressive.
for the other guy my best 60 was a 1.71, 15psi in the tires, couldnt cut anything better than that even i dropped as low as 13 psi. Guess the no SFC's and cage really made this thing come up funny. Plus i woulda liked to put a 28" tall tire under but i only have 3.73s and i didnt feel like paying for a gear swap for a 10 bolt (which i guess woulda been fine
) but none the less 1.71 was my best.P.S. all on 91 octane and under 8 degrees advance initial timing
10-09-2005, 07:53 AM
#5
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Richlands N.C.
Posts: 574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '92 RS
Engine: 350 carb'd
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: 4.10
If you can keep launching like that I think the rear will be fine. I cut 1.7x for many many passes and had no problem. Once I hit 1.65-1.66 is when it all went down hill.
10-10-2005, 05:58 AM
#7
Supreme Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Changing Tires
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: too many ...
I'm not exactly a hater but I try to be realistic about what I can expect out of my car. These parts do have a power rating and if you're over the limit you will always be chancing it as far as I'm concerned. I think its great that you're running those times with that equipment though. You must drive it good and maintain it good. People have always said the T5 will last if you dont abuse it, here's more proof. I would be stoked if I were to pull this off, but I wouldnt exactly consider the car reliable. No slight to you either, thats just my opinion. I would be interested to hear how long this setup lasts before failure. As with all things, we only usually hear the bad parts. People are more likely to post about something breaking than something working great. So alot of times some parts get a bad rap. Its good to follow someone that has it working great and see how it works out from there. Good job!!
Trending Topics
10-12-2005, 08:27 AM
#9
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dale City, VA
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 GTA and 85 IROC
Engine: 355
Transmission: gear jammer
Axle/Gears: 4.11
It's all in the 60'. Or in your case, the lack there of. 129mph should be mid to low 10s. Good job, but w/ a real drivetrain, you'd go faster.
10-12-2005, 10:15 AM
#10
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,116
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
So, you're lucky so far. Congratulations. I hope it keeps up for you.
What will you post about that stuff, when your luck runs out?? Will EVERYBODY ELSE in the world suddenly not be wrong about it any more, or what?
I destroyed several T-5s and a 7.5" 10-bolt with a 305; on street tires. My luck already ran out I guess. Not to worry, yours will too, someday. Could be 10 years from now, could be your very next pass. One thing is for sure, IT WILL run out.
What will you post about that stuff, when your luck runs out?? Will EVERYBODY ELSE in the world suddenly not be wrong about it any more, or what?
I destroyed several T-5s and a 7.5" 10-bolt with a 305; on street tires. My luck already ran out I guess. Not to worry, yours will too, someday. Could be 10 years from now, could be your very next pass. One thing is for sure, IT WILL run out.
10-12-2005, 10:43 AM
#11
Originally posted by sofakingdom
Not to worry, yours will too, someday. Could be 10 years from now, could be your very next pass. One thing is for sure, IT WILL run out.
Not to worry, yours will too, someday. Could be 10 years from now, could be your very next pass. One thing is for sure, IT WILL run out.
I also wonder where the ratings on the T5 and the 7.5 rear are from. Measureing torque is easy enough, but these trannys and rears have handled much more torque then their rated for. I wonder if they just have a generic factor of safety they use to compensate for that initial shock the drive train takes. So say the tranny actually held 500 lbs/ft of torque when evenly applied on a machine they cut that figur in half to account for the shock of somebody dumping the clutch.
10-12-2005, 12:41 PM
#12
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,116
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
I think, if you go get an education, you'll find that sort of thing isn't quite so cut-and-dried. It's not like the transmission or rear is "rated" at 320 ft-lbs, so it will survive indefinitely and happily at 319 ft-lbs, but if you put 321 on it, it will instantly reduce itself to powder.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
Like: they might "rate" the transmission at 300 ft-lbs; which ultimately means that when used behind an engine with 300 ft-lbs of torque, 95% (or 90% or 99% or 99.7% or whatever other statistically convenient number they might choose) will make it through the warranty period. They'll pick the statistic such that the cost/benefit ratio TO THEMSELVES is highest. At any engine output above that statistic, profitability suffers. Which means, they might save so much cost on the original part that a 90% survival rate (10% failure) might still be lower cost than improving the OE part spec. All the "rating" means at that point, is the highest engine output figure that can be used with that part, and still maintain profitablility. The "rating" has nothing to do with racing or hot-rodding, you can be assured.
Sound anything like the V8/T-5 combo?
The factory isn't going to give a tinker's dam for whatever happens once it's out of warranty. I.e., they might choose the part so that 3 standard deviations (99.7%) survive through the warranty, which sounds pretty reliable on paper; but it could very possibly be that at 1.5 times the warranty mileage, that part could be experiencing a survival rate of 50%; and they wouldn't care about that in the least. Instead, they'd simply make sure that they had a plentiful stock of replacements, priced profitably. And, as we all know the car mfrs are fond of doing, if they COULDN'T price it profitably for whatever reason (either rising cost from the supplier, or competition from aftermarket repair, or whatever), they'll discontinue it the absolute first possible second they can.
All hot-rodders should work around mfg for a while, they'd understand what the car mfr is REALLY thinking alot better. It isn't "oh we can't make one like this because it'll be faster than the Vette", or any of that stupid crap. It's all about MONEY.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
Like: they might "rate" the transmission at 300 ft-lbs; which ultimately means that when used behind an engine with 300 ft-lbs of torque, 95% (or 90% or 99% or 99.7% or whatever other statistically convenient number they might choose) will make it through the warranty period. They'll pick the statistic such that the cost/benefit ratio TO THEMSELVES is highest. At any engine output above that statistic, profitability suffers. Which means, they might save so much cost on the original part that a 90% survival rate (10% failure) might still be lower cost than improving the OE part spec. All the "rating" means at that point, is the highest engine output figure that can be used with that part, and still maintain profitablility. The "rating" has nothing to do with racing or hot-rodding, you can be assured.
Sound anything like the V8/T-5 combo?
The factory isn't going to give a tinker's dam for whatever happens once it's out of warranty. I.e., they might choose the part so that 3 standard deviations (99.7%) survive through the warranty, which sounds pretty reliable on paper; but it could very possibly be that at 1.5 times the warranty mileage, that part could be experiencing a survival rate of 50%; and they wouldn't care about that in the least. Instead, they'd simply make sure that they had a plentiful stock of replacements, priced profitably. And, as we all know the car mfrs are fond of doing, if they COULDN'T price it profitably for whatever reason (either rising cost from the supplier, or competition from aftermarket repair, or whatever), they'll discontinue it the absolute first possible second they can.
All hot-rodders should work around mfg for a while, they'd understand what the car mfr is REALLY thinking alot better. It isn't "oh we can't make one like this because it'll be faster than the Vette", or any of that stupid crap. It's all about MONEY.
10-12-2005, 01:02 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '89 Firebird Formula
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: T5
yes which I think knowing that you kind of made the last guys point
I think its well known that the majority of people racing with this stock stuff blow it up, or not, like as was also pointed out people rarely find the need to post about how well its surviving, only when it finally breaks.. and everything breaks eventually
and not to mention most people here would be racing with there stock stuff, cos not just everyone can afford the extra $5000 to go behind there engine to keep everything reliable, but thats just how it goes
so im willing to bet the huge lack of "i just blew my t56" or my 9" is more because theres less people using the stuff, then anything else
anyone who NEEDS them in the first place is more then likely to find a way to destroy it
but whatever, im glad its working out for you, i hope you get a couple more runs before it gos kaput, heh..
I think its well known that the majority of people racing with this stock stuff blow it up, or not, like as was also pointed out people rarely find the need to post about how well its surviving, only when it finally breaks.. and everything breaks eventually
and not to mention most people here would be racing with there stock stuff, cos not just everyone can afford the extra $5000 to go behind there engine to keep everything reliable, but thats just how it goes
so im willing to bet the huge lack of "i just blew my t56" or my 9" is more because theres less people using the stuff, then anything else
anyone who NEEDS them in the first place is more then likely to find a way to destroy it
but whatever, im glad its working out for you, i hope you get a couple more runs before it gos kaput, heh..
10-12-2005, 06:00 PM
#14
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sofakingdom
I think, if you go get an education, you'll find that sort of thing isn't quite so cut-and-dried. It's not like the transmission or rear is "rated" at 320 ft-lbs, so it will survive indefinitely and happily at 319 ft-lbs, but if you put 321 on it, it will instantly reduce itself to powder.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
Like: they might "rate" the transmission at 300 ft-lbs; which ultimately means that when used behind an engine with 300 ft-lbs of torque, 95% (or 90% or 99% or 99.7% or whatever other statistically convenient number they might choose) will make it through the warranty period. They'll pick the statistic such that the cost/benefit ratio TO THEMSELVES is highest. At any engine output above that statistic, profitability suffers. Which means, they might save so much cost on the original part that a 90% survival rate (10% failure) might still be lower cost than improving the OE part spec. All the "rating" means at that point, is the highest engine output figure that can be used with that part, and still maintain profitablility. The "rating" has nothing to do with racing or hot-rodding, you can be assured.
Sound anything like the V8/T-5 combo?
The factory isn't going to give a tinker's dam for whatever happens once it's out of warranty. I.e., they might choose the part so that 3 standard deviations (99.7%) survive through the warranty, which sounds pretty reliable on paper; but it could very possibly be that at 1.5 times the warranty mileage, that part could be experiencing a survival rate of 50%; and they wouldn't care about that in the least. Instead, they'd simply make sure that they had a plentiful stock of replacements, priced profitably. And, as we all know the car mfrs are fond of doing, if they COULDN'T price it profitably for whatever reason (either rising cost from the supplier, or competition from aftermarket repair, or whatever), they'll discontinue it the absolute first possible second they can.
All hot-rodders should work around mfg for a while, they'd understand what the car mfr is REALLY thinking alot better. It isn't "oh we can't make one like this because it'll be faster than the Vette", or any of that stupid crap. It's all about MONEY.
I think, if you go get an education, you'll find that sort of thing isn't quite so cut-and-dried. It's not like the transmission or rear is "rated" at 320 ft-lbs, so it will survive indefinitely and happily at 319 ft-lbs, but if you put 321 on it, it will instantly reduce itself to powder.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
Like: they might "rate" the transmission at 300 ft-lbs; which ultimately means that when used behind an engine with 300 ft-lbs of torque, 95% (or 90% or 99% or 99.7% or whatever other statistically convenient number they might choose) will make it through the warranty period. They'll pick the statistic such that the cost/benefit ratio TO THEMSELVES is highest. At any engine output above that statistic, profitability suffers. Which means, they might save so much cost on the original part that a 90% survival rate (10% failure) might still be lower cost than improving the OE part spec. All the "rating" means at that point, is the highest engine output figure that can be used with that part, and still maintain profitablility. The "rating" has nothing to do with racing or hot-rodding, you can be assured.
Sound anything like the V8/T-5 combo?
The factory isn't going to give a tinker's dam for whatever happens once it's out of warranty. I.e., they might choose the part so that 3 standard deviations (99.7%) survive through the warranty, which sounds pretty reliable on paper; but it could very possibly be that at 1.5 times the warranty mileage, that part could be experiencing a survival rate of 50%; and they wouldn't care about that in the least. Instead, they'd simply make sure that they had a plentiful stock of replacements, priced profitably. And, as we all know the car mfrs are fond of doing, if they COULDN'T price it profitably for whatever reason (either rising cost from the supplier, or competition from aftermarket repair, or whatever), they'll discontinue it the absolute first possible second they can.
All hot-rodders should work around mfg for a while, they'd understand what the car mfr is REALLY thinking alot better. It isn't "oh we can't make one like this because it'll be faster than the Vette", or any of that stupid crap. It's all about MONEY.
10-16-2005, 11:16 AM
#15
Originally posted by sofakingdom
I think, if you go get an education, you'll find that sort of thing isn't quite so cut-and-dried. It's not like the transmission or rear is "rated" at 320 ft-lbs, so it will survive indefinitely and happily at 319 ft-lbs, but if you put 321 on it, it will instantly reduce itself to powder.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
I think, if you go get an education, you'll find that sort of thing isn't quite so cut-and-dried. It's not like the transmission or rear is "rated" at 320 ft-lbs, so it will survive indefinitely and happily at 319 ft-lbs, but if you put 321 on it, it will instantly reduce itself to powder.
In my manufacturing engineering experience, limited though it may be, I've always taken a statistical approach to stuff like that. I'd expect GM did the same when they chose the parts for these cars.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
UltRoadWarrior9
Transmissions and Drivetrain
3
09-02-2015 08:24 PM