Originally Posted by kerry (Post 3098618)

I'd say first would be useless in a car. I had one in a 21' Class A motorhome and rarely used first. Only used it on very steep hills when starting out.

Originally Posted by vstech (Post 3098624)

Hmm... would the DEEP 5 speed be a bonus if you have a 2.47 or taller rear ratio?

Originally Posted by kerry (Post 3098648)

I doubt it. Even if a 2.47:1 is double as high as a van (and I don't think it quite is), you'd still be looking at too low a gear. I think you'd be shifting before 10mph.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3098672)

I think fitting under a sedan floor may be an issue.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3098672)

I think fitting under a sedan floor may be an issue.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3098672)

I think fitting under a sedan floor may be an issue.

Originally Posted by 47dodge (Post 3098920)

Really need to run the numbers. compare the total drive ratio in first with the current rear, then do the first gear ratio with the proposed tranny and lower rear and then you can see exactly what you will get. For bumper to bumper traffic it could be good. just let it idle in first and creep along.

I would expect first to be non syncro, but the rest should be syncronized. I do not know this for fact, but it is the normal way a truck tranny is done.

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve (Post 3098953)

I've driven a couple of 309d's before and those iron 711 transmissions are kind of loud.

Hm. How loud/would it be due to too much wear?

Plus I agree with 47dodge, you'd have to almost stop to get it from 2nd to 1st, or just into 1st gear from neutral.

...which is why I'm proposing to use it with a 2.24. I'll do the math and see what I find.

Downshifting is kind of rough also. I think this trans would make your car feel like a truck.

Again, excessive wear?

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve (Post 3098974)

I'm not sure if it's excessive wear. But they are truck transmissions and they act like a tough truck transmission. I'm just say'n.. if you like the feel of shifting a truck then this is the trans for you.

Originally Posted by vstech (Post 3099147)

IDK, those pics seem to show the truck bell is the same, and the shifter is just attached to the tail piece, it should easily be removed to use a car shifter...

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve (Post 3099110)

A 20 year old ford would still shift better. These 711 trans are noisy but are built like a tank to handle heavy duty usage. The gears are not shaped like a passenger car trans gears, so shifting is clunky and requires double clutching when down shifting. I just think it wouldn't feel right in a car... Bus yes... Car no...

Originally Posted by Stretch (Post 3099113)

Now I'm sorry to fly in the face of popular belief but I've always been pretty impressed by the car-like qualities of the TNs - compare their driving qualities with a manual gear box of the same era and I reckon they are about the same...

...I mean if you install a gear box that was designed in the 1970s you'll end up with that 1970s feel - there's no escaping it!

I actually prefer the shifting qualities of the older on the floor gear boxes than the more modern Sprinter linkages that usually spring from the dashboard tend to be really notchy and vague on the rentals that I end up having to endure.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3099120)

I would want to get measurements from the bell housing area, it may be a lot larger than the car bells. The adapter that bolts to the back of the motor may be larger in the truck/van. Also the shifter area on the van tranny looks pretty bulky to fit inside a car body.

Originally Posted by vstech (Post 3099147)

IDK, those pics seem to show the truck bell is the same, and the shifter is just attached to the tail piece, it should easily be removed to use a car shifter...

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099175)

...so is the TN transmission constant-mesh or sliding-gear?

Also, someone I contacted via PM raised the issue that the TN transmission was not built to handle the torque coming out of an 617.952, and would suffer premature death if mated to one. Does that sound right? I though that I remembered some camper owners upgrading to 617.952s with no reported problems. Does anyone have any thoughts one way or the other on that?

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3099192)

That sounds unlikely. The van/truck tranny should be a lot stronger than a car tranny.

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099169)

So, I'm not opposed to double-clutching, but what is difference in the transmission? Why do I have a synchronized upshift but an unsynchronized downshift?



What would you say are the differences in feel from, say, a 2004 Corolla? The Corolla doesn't feel very "vague" or "notchy", it just feels average.



This thing is a 207D engine/transmission, freshly lifted out of the truck.

http://wemakethings.net/assets/image...r-on-hoist.jpg



That's what I was thinking -- just play with a 240D shifter and keep the knob from this one.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sternschnuppe (Post 3099189)

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099169)

...

What would you say are the differences in feel from, say, a 2004 Corolla? The Corolla doesn't feel very "vague" or "notchy", it just feels average.

...

Originally Posted by Stretch (Post 3099307)

I've never driven a Corolla of that vintage so I can't say for sure but I get the impression that most modern Japanese vehicles of that ilk are dead boring but dead reliable. I'd expect that you'd hardly notice the shifting qualities of a Corolla [You got it! That's what I was trying to communicate!] - whereas for the gear boxes that you are considering I think you would! [That's okay with me -- I like "feeling" something, which is probably why my favorite part of driving is working the clutch and double-clutching into first...]

I don't think that you are going to get a gear change - as in the actual feeling of the shift coupled with a smooth transition of power from the engine and an appropriate feeling of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle like you get in your Corolla when you make the sort of DIY solution that you are suggesting.

[...so are you saying that the double-clutching in my Corolla is not the same as double-clutching a TN? I expect that. The Corolla is too lax on me when my double-clutch is slightly off.]

Usually these types of solution are OK / great / excellent to the person who did it because they "did it" - only they are likely not to be critical about it - only they are happy to double de-clutch or ease off on the accelerator "when it does that" etc. Now there's nothing wrong with this kind of DIY modification - Renault do it all the time - but then they sell stuff to people who will put up with their **** because it is discounted and they get the feeling that they've had a good deal...

[If you love French cars so much, why do you have a German one? :D]

...sorry for the French car rant (!) - Basically be realistic with what you can achieve. Do some sums to see how you think the engine will cope in all gears not just the top end calculation.

[...working on that right now.]

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099169)

So, I'm not opposed to double-clutching, but what is difference in the transmission? Why do I have a synchronized upshift but an unsynchronized downshift?

.

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve (Post 3099352)

My understanding the gears are straight cut as opposed to helical. Yet more durable, they can be noisy and downshifting a bit rough. Double-clutching on a downshift would bring the RPM on par with the gear's speed at that moment. Upshifting is not so dramatic in terms of matching the speed.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3099389)

perhaps they are straight cut on first and reverse.

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099406)

Aaah, straight-cut! The reverse gear in our Corolla is straight-cut, and it's definitely louder than the forward gears. Darn. Did all the gears make the same noise, or are some of them helical-cut?

Originally Posted by Stretch (Post 3099411)

Helical gears make more noise when used backwards...

...straight cut gears are stronger (well they should be!) I'd be surprised if they were fitted to any TN gear box though - as that would have made it a lot more specialised and expensive. These little commercial vehicles aren't meant to last as long as they do - they're not as well built as say a Unimog.

I could be wrong about the TN gear boxes - I'm just going on the Ford Transit ethos => build it cheap and base it on as many high volume car parts that you can.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3099389)

perhaps they are straight cut on first and reverse.

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099406)

Aaah, straight-cut! The reverse gear in our Corolla is straight-cut, and it's definitely louder than the forward gears. Darn. Did all the gears make the same noise, or are some of them helical-cut?

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099413)

So it looks like a camper transmission with the 4.7:1 first gear would hit 2000 RPM at 12 MPH in first with the 2.47:1, while hitting 2000 RPM in fifth at 57 MPH (ASSUMING that 5th in the campers is 1:1). This sounds like the ideal fit! If it isn't too noisy (or if it can be silenced with sound insulation on one or both sides of the tunnel), and fits, I may start looking for a camper transmission

Oh! Would a W123 clutch fit? It would be a pain to look for a camper clutch.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3099448)

I could be wrong but I would expect straight cut gears only if no synchromesh is used. I would expect it only in a tractor or a race car.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sternschnuppe (Post 3099189)

Originally Posted by Jooseppi Luna (Post 3099484)

Apparently straight-cut gears are sometimes made with synchronizers -- see here. I kind of like the gear whine, but I could see it getting tiring for an extended period of time. Also, why would (yeah, I'm responding to DeliveryValve now...) first & second be straight-cut while the rest is helical-cut? Do the lower gears need more strength?