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
:thumbsup:

GM you did a fine job on the T-5 n 10 bolt :D

good to see my old mini spool held up.....nice time. almost in the 10"s with that stuff is very impressive.

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.:mad:

Yup thanks buddy couldn't have done it with out u, now if they just stop laggin on my video :D

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 :thumbsup: ) but none the less 1.71 was my best.

P.S. all on 91 octane and under 8 degrees advance initial timing

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. :mad:

Fellow T5 lover, but I gots me a 9-bolt baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U = DA MAN

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!!

yo crazy i got my vid posted in the drag race section think its called official 11.12 pass or somethin like that

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.

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.

You can say that about any part though. Maybe a Lenko behind a 11 second 350 may last forever, but anything practical is going to break eventually.

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.

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.

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..

never thought about it that way, now that i think about it, chances are you're 110 percent right

Thanks Mr. Industrial engineer, my education is only in mechanical engineering so I didn't aspire to explain factors of safety. Though I know their numbers are not random, I also know there is no way to accurately determine values for things like shock. The only way to do that is with experimental data and extrapolation from tables created by that data. But once it is extrapolated a generic number can be used for the safety factor. I was just curious if anyone was aware of such a number and if that is why the torque ratings were so low compared to what these trannys can actually handle.