Do I need a trans cross-member w/t5 swap?

[64stpside]

Do I need a trans cross-member w/t5 swap? I'm using a 1992 S10 T5. Just want to make sure there's not too much weight hanging without support as the s10 trans is longer. Oh, I'm using the factory bell housing with the mounts attached to it. Had a saginaw 3 speed manual

[padresag]

not required. T5 would be a lot lighter that a SM420 trans that was more than likely in there before
ron

[64stpside]

Originally Posted by padresag

not required. T5 would be a lot lighter that a SM420 trans that was more than likely in there before
ron

actually, it had a 3 spd sag in it ( i edited my post). I assumed it was a v8 bell housing as i have a 305 in it. Are the str 6 and v8 bell housings the same?

[padresag]

63-66 yes
ron

[Backpayne]

I haven't had a crossmember with my t5 and haven't had one issue. They are light.

[Heater63]

use either the bellhousing mounts OR a trans crossmember, but don't do both.

I would delete the bellhousing mounts and run a crossmember with tranny mount.

[padresag]

Originally Posted by Heater63

use either the bellhousing mounts OR a trans crossmember, but don't do both.

I would delete the bellhousing mounts and run a crossmember with tranny mount.

Why? what is the problem with the bellhousing mounting?
ron

[BurbN]

No crossmember needed if you have a carrier bearing. It gives enough support to the rear. You may run into an issue with the s10 rear trans-mount tang that sticks down from the tail of tranny interfering with your E-brake cross-member, from what i've read of guys doing this swap in a C10. My 64 Suburban's E-brake assembly bolted right back up and cleared everything perfect. Maybe the truck frames are setup a little differently?

[64stpside]

No carrier bearing on mine

[padresag]

you don't need one for that
ron

[Heater63]

Originally Posted by padresag

Why? what is the problem with the bellhousing mounting?
ron

No problem with the bellhousing mounts, and a cast Iron Saginaw mounted to the cast iron bellhousing cantilever design has proven the GM engineers correct for 50 years.

However, hanging the Aluminum T5 without a tranny support makes you a test pilot. It has worked for Backpayne. S10, Camaro, Mustang all used a tailpiece mount on crossmember for their T5s. I would follow the lead of the engineers designing T5 applications.


Tremec and others say run EITHER the bellhousing or tailpiece mounts. If you use all 3, you risk fracturing the aluminum trans case.

[padresag]

Originally Posted by Heater63

No problem with the bellhousing mounts, and a cast Iron Saginaw mounted to the cast iron bellhousing cantilever design has proven the GM engineers correct for 50 years.

However, hanging the Aluminum T5 without a tranny support makes you a test pilot. It has worked for Backpayne. S10, Camaro, Mustang all used a tailpiece mount on crossmember for their T5s. I would follow the lead of the engineers designing T5 applications.


Tremec and others say run EITHER the bellhousing or tailpiece mounts. If you use all 3, you risk fracturing the aluminum trans case.

rear mounting was more than likely a matter of economics with the advent of the aluminum case automatic trans having rear mounts. no sense in having the cost of 2 mounting locations when 1 will do. doubt it has anything to do with aluminum vs cast iron manual trans cases.
there have been a lot of aluminum trans cases hung of the back if b/housings and haven't heard of many falling off have you?
ron

[Captainfab]

Back in the '70's I used to tun a Muncie M21 hanging off of the original cast iron bellhousing in my '63. I beat on it pretty hard and did not have issues with breaking the case. I know many others have done the same with a Muncie or a BW Super T10.