In my 82 camaro there is an aluminum borg warner, are they all aluminum? here is the number that was underneath it 13-04-066-906
If they are not all aluminum how many pounds difference are they? And its a 4 spd

------------------
We'll get out of here, it'll just take a hole lot of floorin.

[This message has been edited by Digger (edited January 15, 2001).]

 

What's the shift pattern? Specifically, is reverse up and left next to 1st, or is it down and right next to 4th?

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."

 

That should be a Borg Warner T10 with a specific number of input splines and torque arm mount for the Thirdgen Camaro only. The T5 came out in 83 so there is a good chance all 82 Camaro T10's are aluminum but I don't know for sure.

------------------
84 Camaro ZZ4 with HOT cam. 1.88 60' (12.98 @ 105MPH E.T.)
Other Mods: You name it and I have probably changed it.

2001 Dodge Ram Quad Cab 5.9L 4*2

ASE Certified Auto Tech
LIVE AND DIE BY THE ALMIGHTY BOWTIE!

 

All modern T-10s are aluminum I believe. The old ones (pre-Muncie) were cast iron and weighed a lot more. I have an aluminum T-10 in my '82 also.

 

Revers is left and up , right beside 1st

 

That would be the T-10! For further ID, it should have an external shifter; and a cast iron "inspection cover", with the 1-2 and 3-4 shifter shafts in it, and the R shifter shaft in the case.

If that's what you've got, then it's a rare beast indeed. I've never seen one of those with the torque arm mount and skewed trans mount pad for our cars. The vast majority of the 82 4-speed cars had the Saginaw which is all cast iron, has Reverse down and right instead of up and left, and has all 3 shifter shafts in the case instead of the one in the ext housing. It is IMHO a pile of horse dung whereas the one you have is the cream of the crop. I've had a bunch of cars over the years that had T-10s, no 3rd gens though.

BTW Cowboy - you're right about the stock T-10s all being aluminum. However, the Muncie far predates the T-10: there have been Muncies since 64 IIRC. They are also all aluminum. The only way I know forr sure to get a cast-iron T-10 was to buy an aftermarket one with that option, though I could be wrong about that. I've built probably 50 Muncie and T-10 4-speeds at least, and never even seen a cast iron T-10, only aluminum ones.

Why do you ask about this Digger? Are you planning a change, or needing to know if it will stand up to something, or what?

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."

 

I believe you'll find that Cheverolet used the T-10 designation in the 50s and it was cast iron.

I could be wrong though.

 

I have this in my 82 camaro. Im building a 355 with 9.5:1 compression, fully ported heads with 1.94 and 1.5 valves,Edelbrock torquer intake, edelbrock 650 carb headers and straight pipe. it also has this cam 290/290 adv dur 222/222 @ .050 and .447 lift. And the car has posi rear end. I figered I better see If my transmision is good enough to stand up to my motor.

I also have another 82 camaro
69 350 w/4 bolt mains
Edelbrock performer intake
Edelbrock 600 carb
th 350 with stage 2 shift kit
275/60R15's on the back
Bainted black with blue pearl and two silver stripes running down the middle and end with two bow ties on the back bumper

 

And how much power do you think this will combo will make? And how much torque can the T-10 handle?

 

Since all you're using is a "151" cam, the trans won't be giving you any trouble. That transmission was used in all sorts of high-performance vehicles from the factory, including early 70s Vettes and such. Even the old 1" shaft Muncies, which are an inferior box, were used in the 427/435 Vettes; the T-10 is a stronger unit than that was. I don't know what sort of rating it might have had, but I have known of many, many of them over the years in cars with 500 ft-lbs of torque and similar HP numbers.

Depending on your heads, I think you'll come out with as much as 345 ft-lbs and 320 HP at the crank. That would be with good heads like double-hump ones, assuming you're getting your compression down to 9.5 with dish pistons. If however that's a flat-top motor with smog heads like 882s or something along those lines like it sounds, I think it will probably do about 335 ft-lbs and 285 HP.

In case you can't tell, I hate that cam... I feel like if I tossed one of those and a quarter in the garbage, I'd be exactly 25¢ poorer. There are so many better cams out there, I'd hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot that way. The "151" is an OK truck cam for an emssions piece but just isn't a hot-rod thing at all. That whole combo (big inake, little heads, really dinky cam) will give you one of those motors that has no leave, seems to wind forever, but runs the quarter in 14.5 seconds because it never really comes on.

My advice to you would be to get a better set of heads, and look at a modern cam like Comp's Xtreme Energy series, or some similar sort of fast ramp design cam with a bigger exhasut lobe than intake. Just to give you some ides how bad the 151 cam is, Comp's XE274H has 230° intake and 236° exhaust, .470"/480" of lift, and 274 advertised intake duration. As you can see, you'll get far more lift, far more .050" duration which is where power is, and less .006" (advertised) duration, for better low end and gas mileage. The 274 might be more cam than you'd want, if so, they make a whole series of them. You'd be amazed at how much better that design is than that old early emissions factory design.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."

 

I have been told that this was a really good cam. anyway the heads are 882's. I dont really want to sink more money into this motor. Although some poeple said this should make around 375 hp and 400 lbs of torque. What do you think my other camaro is putting out, I have never had the heads off. But I did check the casting number the heads are off of a 69 camaro 350 or 302 and thats all it told me. Its been bored out .030 My guess is that it has around 9:1 compression and all the stuff listed in a previous post.

 

If they are casting # 186, 492, 292, 041, 414, or 492, then they're the "double-hump" type. Those are the best of the old stock heads.

The heads you've got, unless they've been heavily worked over, simply don't flow enough air to get any kind of real high horsepower numbers. Their torque is OK but they just don't flow. If you hog them out as far as they'll go before you hit water, you can get them to flow about what a stock 186 does, or maybe just a little more; they're good for maybe 450 HP before they run out of breath. On the other hand, double-humps will flow enough when well ported to make over 500-550 HP.

On your other motor, I don't know what other stuff there might be in the other post you mention... but those heads with a good cam like the one I mentioned, a small single-plane intake like that Torker and a Holley 650, should make 450 HP easily. If you have a flat-top 350 with any of those heads, your CR is around 10.3:1. That would be a pretty stout motor for very little $$$.

But if you build the motor as you have it laid out, dyno it or get an ET and calculate the HP from there, and see whose guess is closer. If I was the betting type I wouldn't put my money on any 375 HP. With the right cam you might get close to that though.

I really think you should turf that cam. I've known way too many people that have used it and not gotten near the results they thought they were going to get. It's only got .447" of lift, that's hardly any more than what comes in cars off the showroom floor, in all the years it's been around I have yet to figure out why people keep buying it. For $100 more or less you can have any cam you want; don't let that few coins stand in the way of having your motor be all that it can be.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."

 

Yes I heavily re worked them, I took out lots of metal and there is very little left of the valve boss. What if I put on 1.6 rockers, would that give it sufficient amount of lift.Im going with the 650 edelbrock because I can have one for $100 canadian. And I mentioned my other camaro in a previous post.

 

I was reading CHP and it said that the 82 Camaro came with Borg Warner T-10s

 

Oh well I guess I missed that other post... I've seen you on before but it's kind of hard to remember them all!

1.6 rockers would definitely help. And the 650 Edelborck, which is really a Carter AFB, is OK, esp at the price. It's not my favorite but I can make one work pretty good. A friend of mine has one of those on a Chrysler 360 in a ski boat, I worked it over for him and he says it gets 600 more RPM on top end than it used to; another guy I know has a Dodge truck with a 360, we put one on there. That one was the actual Edelbrock one.

Ask around and see what anybody else thinks about your combo. I'm just one guy with an opinion and we all know about opinions. Pay attention to who it is that tells you what: I thnk you've been on this board enough to be able to tell who the builders are and who the wannabes are. I'd bet that not one of the people who will answer your post will have either more than 325 HP that they can back up, or a time slip in the 13s, but instead will tell you about somebody else's car.

------------------
"So many Mustangs, so little time..."

 

The tranny you have is less than ideal for a performance application. I am certainly not ripping on the T-10, because as others have stated it is a good transmission. However, not all T-10s are equal and this one is near the bottom.

IIRC, the '82 F-car T-10 had a 3.42 first gear and obviously widespread two and three gears. This gives this tranny a very low torque handling rating, meaning the factory thinks it could blow easily. Additionally the widespread gears will mandate that your car have a very fat torque curve so the motor stays in the powerband during gear changes.

It's kinda a catch-22 cause you need the torque, but it will kill the tranny.

 

Gotta disagree cowboy!I have had my t10 in my 1982 Z for 4 years with a 300 horse 350,that I constantly beat the **** out of.Installed my new 355(AFR 195,comp xtreme energy 274 cam,4340 summit proline crank&rods,manley 10:1 forged,weiand stealth,demon 750 DP)about 5 months ago,and the tranny loves it!The rear doesnt though.Not trying to be a **** ,but these trannies hold up just as good as older muncies did(not an M22 though,thats a different ball game!)The gear ratios do suck though,had mine changed while motor swap was going on!Much better now!
John

 

W/o trying to sound like a smart@$$, anyone who thinks the t-10 is anywhere near the better muncies are insane. Super T-10's are close, but still not close enough. This isnt coming from internet bs, rather 28 years of breaking things the fun way!

 

I've seen threads brought back from the dead many times, but this may be a record! Thanks for the input.

JamesC