I've found a T56 for sale within reach of me for around 1400 bucks. It's a 1993 G92 Transmission

This is what I got from the seller:

Transmission 35k miles
Pedals
Master / Slave Cylinders
Crossmember
Bellhousing
Homemade Short Throw Shifter
McLeod Clutch and Pressure Plate w/ 4k miles
Stock Flywheel
Stock Clutch Fork..
I will leave all the plugs in the tranny for wiring.

Now my questions......
1) I'm going to be bolting this up to an 87 L98. Is there anything else I need for it to bolt up and run properly?
2) Are there any downfalls to this year transmission as compared to the 94+ years (keep in mind it is a G92) ?
3) How do the specs look as compared to other places/prices?

Thanks,
JON

 

I found this information from the search...

Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

1993 3.36 2.07 1.35 1.00 0.80 0.62 (std)

1993 2.97 2.07 1.43 1.00 0.80 0.62 (G92)

1994+ 2.66 1.78 1.30 1.00 0.74 0.50

which was originally posted by Drakar.

How do these numbers pertain to drivability? Sorry for the noob question....gotta learn somewhere

 

the 93 is inherently the weakest T56 that was produced

 

weakest as in 400 foot pounds....and this is the G92 version...so is it still JUST 400 foot pounds?

I'll never actually pass 400 foot pounds anyway, so this isn't a problem.

 

Well, I guess this isn't much of a help, but I haven't broken my '93 yet It's behind a fairly stout 350, but I've only got about 1000 miles on the whole package and the tranny was brand new when I put it in. I got the tranny, bellhousing, clutch fork and flywheel for $1,000 and even ended up getting free shipping on it hehe. According to the guy I bought it from it sounds like it's the G92 unit you were talking about with the 2.97 first gear. I have no complaints about the gearing, it goes along great with my 3:73 rear end. Anyway, I suppose I'm not helping out a whole lot, but I was told not to worry too much about the issue of it being a '93, if the price is right I'd say go for it, and it seems like a pretty decent deal you're getting. Most people say the only differences they know of between '93 and '94+ is the gear ratios, which shouldn't affect strength, although the '93 units are only rated at 400 ft. lbs. weird huh? Besides that, is a street car really gonna be running sticky enough tires to transfer 400 ft. lbs. straight to the ground? (those are basically the things that were said to me when I asked about the '93)

Hope this is a little useful

-Paul

p.s. here's the thread where I asked my question.

 

Really the only diff is gearing, so if you think the gear spread is good then, go for it.

Here is a break down

Year 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6

93 1.29 0.72 0.35 0.20 0.18 (std) (wide ratio)

93 0.90 0.64 0.43 0.20 0.18 (G92) (close ratio)

94+ 0.88 0.48 0.30 0.26 0.24


All depends on the gears and looking at the 94+ you can see why it is more desirable, but from the looks of it you're getting a good deal on your 93 G92 (I would verify G92) it should hold up well enough to your engine.

 

:hail: thanks for all the help guys. I'd buy it if I could....but money problems have arisen. If anybody wants it, give the user: zimmstoy a PM or email. Great guy to deal with and he seems honest enough.