When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes, that's a great chart for identifying which version of the 200+ versions of the T5 you are looking at. And, for any given version in the table, the "CODE" column contains a letter code that indicates what gear set was used in that model. The two common gear sets that I think are best for C2 conversions are:
Camaro V8 T5: "U" code (2.95/1.94/1.34/1.00 ratios, 1st to 4th)
Mustang V8 T5: "Y" code (3.35/1.99/1.33/1.00 ratios, 1st to 4th)
There are some other low-production T5s that might be of interest, but the above gear sets were made in very high volumes and are not hard to find. If you look closely, you will see that there were some Ford T5s, such as the 1352-251, that use the "U" code gear set that was used mostly in Camaros. I think the 1352-251 may be the one that is currently available brand new from Ford racing for about $2000.
The BritishV8 listing drops off around 1995, so the gear sets used in T5 transmissions made after 1995 are not shown. However, the "Y" code gear set was used in 1999-2004 Mustang V6 applications, which is not well known. This is a good way to get a T5 with the Mustang "Y" code gear set at low cost, but the tail housing has to be changed if you want a mechanical speedometer output.
BTW, the BritishV8 side does not appear to show an example of a T5 ID tag, which is mounted under one of the tailhousing bolts. The photo below is lifted from an ebay ad. This tag shows transmission part number 1352-246. If you look up 1352-246 in the BritishV8 table, you will see that this is a 1994 Mustang V8 T5 with the "Y" code gear set.
@GearheadJoe excellent work!!!! Are you by any chance selling the adaptor plate to the bell housing? or able to provide a drawing. I am all in on this vs going with a TKX.
@GearheadJoe excellent work!!!! Are you by any chance selling the adaptor plate to the bell housing? or able to provide a drawing. I am all in on this vs going with a TKX.
The drawing for the adapter plate was developed in Solidworks CAD software, which is an industry standard that makes the design completely "portable" to any machine shop that uses CNC machine tools. It is my intention to eventually post the CAD file on the web so that anyone can have an adapter plate made at a machine shop. I'm hoping to also post CAD files for the shifter parts and the rear mount. Right now my shifter and rear mount parts have been hand-fabricated, but once they are finalized, I will have them drawn up in SolidWorks CAD format.
Right now I have one prototype of the adapter plate that is 0.5" thick and requires the pre-1994 Mustang input shaft. After doing some test fitting, I determined that I could make the adapter plate 1.2" thick so that the longer input shaft used for the 1994-1995 and 1999-2004 Mustang T5 could be used. At junkyards, these T5s are generally much less expensive than the pre-1994 versions because they are not a bolt-in replacement for the pre-1994 Mustang T5. So, I decided to target these inexpensive versions of the T5.
I have ordered three copies of the revised adapter plate and hope to receive them soon. If they check out okay, I'll have two spares to sell.
My preference is to avoid getting into the business of selling parts, but I do want to make this swap easy for others to do. I've identified a few companies that already sell other types of adapter plates, and I plan to approach them about adding my adapter plate to their catalog. The per-part cost is much lower if the adapter plate is made in batches of ten or more.
Awesome, very familiar with Solidworks & Tinkercad. With the 1.2" wide adaptor. Is there any issue installing the configuration with a solid cross member? Do we need to leverage the clamshell method to do the install?
Awesome, very familiar with Solidworks & Tinkercad. With the 1.2" wide adaptor. Is there any issue installing the configuration with a solid cross member? Do we need to leverage the clamshell method to do the install?
Yes, with a welded-in crossmember, there is definitely an issue with installation while the engine remains in place. Right now I'm doing my test fitting using an empty case that does not have an input shaft installed. That configuration is easy to get in and out with the bellhousing installed on the engine, but it's clear that there will be a problem when there is an input shaft on the transmission.
For the actual installation of a complete transmission, I plan to look at the option of removing the input shaft and then re-installing it after the transmission has been placed up over the crossmember and pushed back as far as possible. This is just an idea right now.
The customary solution used for the TKO installation is the "clamshell" method that you refer to. That requires placing the bellhousing and clutch loosely on the input shaft, lowering the back of the engine and the front of the transmission a few inches, and scooting the tip of the input shaft past the flywheel surface to the center of the crank. At that point in the process, the clutch, bellhousing, and transmission are bolted up in sequence.
I know this method may sound complicated to someone who has not actually done it, but it's pretty easy if you have a 3-axis transmission jack. I've used this method a couple times with my TKO, and I find it to be far simpler than removing the engine. My hope is that this method will also work for the T5, provided that I didn't shoot myself in the foot when I decided to use the longer T5 input shaft. If it turns out that the extra 5/8" of the long T5 input shaft is a deal-killer for the clamshell method, I may decide to go back to the 0.5" adapter plate and the standard-length Mustang input shaft.
Hey mimgq2, your car looks great and I see it has side pipes. For the T5 rear mount, the "final frontier" is figuring out how to incorporate the required exhaust support for cars that have under-car exhaust. I have that mostly worked out now, but it requires a tedious order-of-assembly process that I'm trying to simplify. People whose cars have side pipes get to skip that messy step.
I installed a Camaro T-5 in my 59 a few years ago and love it. I used the tilted Camaro bellhousing and made a replacement crossmember to match up with the trans and frame. I drilled and tapped the 59 block to use a later model starter with the bellhousing. My tunnel was a catastrophe from many PO trans and shifter installs and surgeries so I simply removed the entire top and repaired the glass back to stock - then reattached it.
I modified the shifter to come thru the original shifter opening, modified the clutch linkage and bellhousing slightly.
The 295 first gear is a bit low except for stopped at an uphill traffic stop. The 5 th. gear overdrive and my 4:11 is reat on the open stretches. The lockout replica shifter handle completes the install.
I installed a Camaro T-5 in my 59 a few years ago and love it. I used the tilted Camaro bellhousing and made a replacement crossmember to match up with the trans and frame. I drilled and tapped the 59 block to use a later model starter with the bellhousing. My tunnel was a catastrophe from many PO trans and shifter installs and surgeries so I simply removed the entire top and repaired the glass back to stock - then reattached it.
I modified the shifter to come thru the original shifter opening, modified the clutch linkage and bellhousing slightly.
The 295 first gear is a bit low except for stopped at an uphill traffic stop. The 5 th. gear overdrive and my 4:11 is reat on the open stretches. The lockout replica shifter handle completes the install.
Wow, thanks for the great photos of your installation!
Some people have asked me whether the C2 solution I am working on would also work on a C1. All I have been able to tell them is, "I think so." My rationale has been that the T10 and its external shifter are physically very similar to the Muncie, so the basic problem (shifter offset toward the driver) is the same.
However, I've been uncertain about the tunnel clearance. Your photos suggest that the tunnel clearance is slightly better in a C1 than a C2. The stock Camaro shifter seems to fit fine under the tunnel in your C1, but it doesn't quite fit in a C2. Not having to change the shifter is a big simplification for a "no cutting" conversion.
Do you think the driveshaft angle that you ended up with is similar to the original driveshaft angle? In the C2, it's possible to lower the tailshaft enough to make the stock Camaro shifter fit under the tunnel, but the driveshaft angle changes enough to cause vibration.
Thanks for the shared enthusiasm. I'v been having a lot of fun trying to solve this puzzle. If you would like to join in and work on a solution for your '66, send me a PM and we can talk offline.
I think the current status is that Tom Austin has clearly demonstrated that you can put a T5 in a C2. Tom seems to be delighted with the results. My "research project" is focused on finding a way to avoid having to make any cuts in the transmission tunnel. And, along the way, trying to figure out the lowest cost, simplest way to achieve that.
I've worked out a low-profile shifter that is based on modifying an off-the-shelf MDL shifter (see photo below). I think that simply substituting this modified shifter into Tom Austin's solution would eliminate the need to do any cutting of the tunnel. This is probably the only change that would be needed to achieve a no-cutting installation.
However, the Mustang tailhousing moves the shifter forward 1.8", and it places the speedometer output in a more favorable position that avoids the rear crossmember. So, I'm inclined to recommend using a Mustang tailhousing, regardless of whether the selected T5 is from a Camaro or Mustang.
The above elements are all that are needed to achieve a clean bolt-in solution for a C2, so the only remaining factors to consider are cost and simplicity. I'm pretty focused on cost because the Silver Sport TKX conversion is a complete bolt-in solution for $4000. If the T5 conversion starts to approach $4000, there is no incentive to do it.
My focus on cost has led me toward using the Mustang T5, since they tend to cost much less than a Camaro T5. If you go to www.car-parts.com and look at what various junkyards want for a used T5, here is a rough estimate of how they compare:
All of the above transmissions contain a strong V8 gear set (yes, the 1999-2004 Mustang V6 T5 uses the exact same internal gear set as the 1990-1995 Mustang V8 T5). So, from a cost perspective, the $300 1994-2004 Mustang V6 T5 looks very interesting. The only differences between the 1994-2004 Mustang V6 version and the 1994-1995 Mustang V8 version is that the tailshaft was changed to use an electronic speedometer output. So, if you want a mechanical speedometer output, you have to budget about $100 to change the tailhousing and add a few mechanical speedo parts.
In case you are wondering why the 1994-1995 Mustang V8 T5 costs less than the 1990-1993 version, the reason is that the input shaft was made longer starting in 1994. So, the 1994-1995 Mustang T5 is not a bolt-in replacement for an earlier Mustang. This makes it less attractive to the Mustang crowd.
As I noted in my article, the T5 is sort of the "Chevy small block" of the transmission world. It has been in production for over 30 years, and there is a considerable degree of interchangeability among parts. And, there is a large supply of used parts availability on ebay and elsewhere. It is technically feasible to start with any of the above four transmissions and turn it into any of the others by simply swapping parts. So, there are lots of options to consider when trying to find the most cost-effective solution.
Have been doing some homework on this configuration and this adapter approach appears to hold water over the Muncie t-5 approach. I am finding that the Muncie T5 trans is more costly, folks tell me the housing is hard to get and they are charging about $200-300 more than a standard ford. Given that bell housing and trans are being priced at a premium ($300), this would premium will pay for the adapter being machined.
looking at the shifter, what is the trick there, it appears to be a low-profile pivot custom setup?
So I think I see what we have here. A modified MDL shifter as described in the doc. So not only is the shifter angle transitioned the shifter height is modified to allow the trans to sit at the proper angle. If this is not done, then we need to tweak the tunnel.
Have been doing some homework on this configuration and this adapter approach appears to hold water over the Muncie t-5 approach. I am finding that the Muncie T5 trans is more costly, folks tell me the housing is hard to get and they are charging about $200-300 more than a standard ford. Given that bell housing and trans are being priced at a premium ($300), this would premium will pay for the adapter being machined.
looking at the shifter, what is the trick there, it appears to be a low-profile pivot custom setup?
Yes, I came to the same conclusion regarding whether to use a Camaro T5 and a Camaro tilted bellhousing, or use an adapter plate and a Mustang T5. The adapter plate plus Mustang T5 appears to be considerably less expensive. It also lets you keep the stock bellhousing, clutch fork, and clutch linkage, which simplifies the conversion.
The Camaro T5 option is still technically quite viable, as can be seen in Tom Austin's conversion and OLDED's conversion. It just costs more if you have to purchase a Camaro T5 and a Camaro tilted bellhousing. If someone already has those parts in-hand, it's an attractive swap, especially if a Mustang tailhousing is swapped in.
Regarding the modified shifter in my earlier photo, that shifter started life as this shifter from MDL:
The key shifter issue for the T5 conversion is to reduce the height of the shifter body. There is only about 0.70" available between the surface where the shifter mounts on the tailhousing and the underside of the transmission tunnel.
I purchased and examined several different shifters to see if any of them could be easily modified to lower the shifter body height to less than 0.70". The above MDL shifter looked the most promising. I shortened the fulcrum length below the pivot point and then shortened the body height. The resulting body height is 0.5". To get further out from the edge of the C2 shifter opening, I may end up putting a slight offset in the fulcrum end. The straight shift lever fits in my car, but just barely.
In the photo below of the modified shifter, the steel block between the gold-colored shifter lever and the chrome shifter handle serves two purposes:
1) Correct for the 19 degree tilt of the transmission
2) Move the shift lever forward toward the center of the C2 shifter opening
I'm still tweaking the shifter design, but eventually there will be a custom-made fulcrum lever and a custom base. The rest of the parts will be standard hardware.
Maybe it may be more effective to keep the transmission upright since adaptors already exist. The core design issue is the limited tunnel height and the need to maintain the proper trans angle and not cut the tunnel. While the 19 degrees is nice, it is not a home run but a very good option I may go with and simply trim the tunnel.
The current T5 tail shafts offer multiple functions:
1. Mounts the shifter.
2. is the shift gate
3. is the spring lock to hold shift positions.
4. Oil retention is maintained by an o-ring on the shifter top.
Other functions exist but not for this topic.
Leveraging the current shifter pocket to add a side lever is not possible from the bottom. Only the top and this would reverse the shift pattern.
It got me thinking how about cutting the tail shaft and creating a space to add a new lug and lever. Now we can retain the gate, the lock and have the freedom to locate the shifter where needed. @66vette2 appears to have started with an S10 tail shaft and then proceeded from there. thus the gate and locks needed to be designed.
I don't think cutting the tail shaft will be difficult once a procedure is identified.
Thoughts? feasibility, costs, why won't this work? 4 custom parts / shifter lug, lever, top plate to support the shifter, shielding (rubber or plastic to cover parts) /process - cut tailshaft
Maybe it may be more effective to keep the transmission upright since adaptors already exist. The core design issue is the limited tunnel height and the need to maintain the proper trans angle and not cut the tunnel. While the 19 degrees is nice, it is not a home run but a very good option I may go with and simply trim the tunnel.
The current T5 tail shafts offer multiple functions:
1. Mounts the shifter.
2. is the shift gate
3. is the spring lock to hold shift positions.
4. Oil retention is maintained by an o-ring on the shifter top.
Other functions exist but not for this topic.
Leveraging the current shifter pocket to add a side lever is not possible from the bottom. Only the top and this would reverse the shift pattern.
It got me thinking how about cutting the tail shaft and creating a space to add a new lug and lever. Now we can retain the gate, the lock and have the freedom to locate the shifter where needed. @66vette2 appears to have started with an S10 tail shaft and then proceeded from there. thus the gate and locks needed to be designed.
I don't think cutting the tail shaft will be difficult once a procedure is identified.
Thoughts? feasibility, costs, why won't this work? 4 custom parts / shifter lug, lever, top plate to support the shifter, shielding (rubber or plastic to cover parts) /process - cut tailshaft
Thanks mimgq2 for posting the link to that fascinating article about relocating the shifter. That is a very clever way of decoupling the function of the shifter from all the other functions that are provided by the shift gate and spring detent. I plan to think a bit about how this decoupling trick could be exploited for a possible C2 solution.
Currently, my sense is that the location of the shifter box itself is not a problem for the C2 if a Mustang tailhousing is used. The problem is that the base of the stock shifter is too tall to clear the transmission tunnel. Only about 0.70" is available between the top of the tailhousing shifter box and the underside of the transmission tunnel.
The stock Camaro shifter body is 1.2" tall and the stock Mustang shifter body is 1.45" tall. These dimensions are just for the shifter body, and do not include the additional room required to mount a dog-leg that moves the shift lever 2.8 inches toward the driver.
If we want to use the existing shifter box on the Mustang tailhousing, we have several options for achieving little or no cutting of the tunnel:
1) Mount the transmission straight-up and develop a complete shifter arrangement (shifter plus dog-leg) that fits within the available 0.70".
2) Come up with a low profile shifter that gets the shifter body within the available 0.70", but requires a small cut in the tunnel to clear the dog-leg.
3) Tilt the transmission to gain more available height for the shifter.
4) Develop a side-mount shifter that mounts to the side of the shifter box, rather than the top.
All of these options are worth thinking through. So far, I have not been able to figure out a way to accomplish Option #1, but I think that Option #2 is feasible if you are willing to make a small cut in the tunnel, between the ash tray opening and the shifter opening. The only reason that I have not pursued that option is my self-imposed restriction to come up with a "no cutting" solution. This is why I'm currently focused on Option #3.
I want to point out that Option #4 (side-mount shifter) appears feasible to me, and in fact this was the first approach the I prototyped. I found that there were several engineering complications that caused the cost to grow beyond the expected cost of using an adapter to tilt the transmission, so I suspended my work on the side-mount shifter.
I remain interested in the side-mount shifter option, and eventually I may return to that investigation. Before I do that, though, I want to get Option #3 (tilting the transmission with an adapter plate) over the finish line. Progress has been slow because I have only a few hours per week to work on this project, but I think I'm getting close.
When I did mine. I looked at doing this, but the old shifter box appeared it would hit the tunnel and block the ash tray. i had some issues with my set up. Oil leak, I had to remove the tranny out and double seal the shifter shaft. Also, the air vent had to be relocated because of the design. I moved it to the tranny cover. The result, I would not slam gears like the Muncie. It's like the 7M on the Z06, not a good idea in my opinion. Overall in works pretty good.
Maybe it may be more effective to keep the transmission upright since adaptors already exist. The core design issue is the limited tunnel height and the need to maintain the proper trans angle and not cut the tunnel. While the 19 degrees is nice, it is not a home run but a very good option I may go with and simply trim the tunnel.
The current T5 tail shafts offer multiple functions:
1. Mounts the shifter.
2. is the shift gate
3. is the spring lock to hold shift positions.
4. Oil retention is maintained by an o-ring on the shifter top.
Other functions exist but not for this topic.
Leveraging the current shifter pocket to add a side lever is not possible from the bottom. Only the top and this would reverse the shift pattern.
It got me thinking how about cutting the tail shaft and creating a space to add a new lug and lever. Now we can retain the gate, the lock and have the freedom to locate the shifter where needed. @66vette2 appears to have started with an S10 tail shaft and then proceeded from there. thus the gate and locks needed to be designed.
I don't think cutting the tail shaft will be difficult once a procedure is identified.
Thoughts? feasibility, costs, why won't this work? 4 custom parts / shifter lug, lever, top plate to support the shifter, shielding (rubber or plastic to cover parts) /process - cut tailshaft
Hi mimgq2:
Did you decide which shifter option to pursue for your T5 conversion?
I've made some progress on my "minimum cost" option that uses a Mustang T5 with an adapter plate that tilts the transmission by the same 19 degrees that the Camaro tilted bellhousing provides. Using an adapter plate allows the stock bellhousing and clutch linkage to be retained, and avoids the need to acquire a semi-rare 1983 Camaro bellhousing. My adapter plate is finished, the shifter design has been finalized, and I'm having some shifter parts fabricated. So, I think I am close to test driving a no-cutting, bolt-in solution that solves the shifter position problem by tilting the transmission.
However, I remain intrigued by the possibility of mounting the transmission straight-up and solving the shifter problem some other way. I recall that you were very interested in that approach. Now that I've had more time to think about this, I've come up with two ideas that I think would work:
1) I think I now see a way to use the same solution used by SST to mount a side shifter on the TKO and TKX 5-speeds. Originally I thought this would reverse the shift pattern, but this is only the case if the shifter is mounted high like it is in the photo below. If the SST shifter is mounted lower and farther back than what you see in this photo of a TKX, the geometry can be made to work. The SST shifter can be purchased for $275, but some additional fabrication would be required to use it.
2) Another option that appears feasible is to push the entire shifter body down into the tailhousing shifter box so that all of the available clearance between the C2 tunnel and the shifter box (only about 0.7") is available for cutting off the shift lever to a short stub and installing a horizontal "dog-leg" that runs over to the C2 shifter opening. The photo below shows the low-profile shifter that I am using with the tilted transmission. The shortest possible stub coming out of this shifter would be about 1.0" above the top of the tailhousing shifter box, so this shifter is still too tall for a no-cutting solution that uses a straight-up transmission and a dog-leg.
However, I think I have figured out that the shifter body could be pushed down further about 0.5" into the tailhousing shifter box if I slide it back about an inch and modify the stock Mustang knuckle so that the hole that receives the shifter ball tip is deeper in the shifter box. This would free up the entire 0.7" of potential tunnel clearance for implementing the dog-leg.
I think Option 2 is likely to cost less than Option 1. And, it might even cost less than my current solution that tilts the transmission. Once I finalize my current solution that tilts the transmission, I plan to try prototyping Option 2.
I think that Option 2 only works with the Mustang tailhousing (larger shifter box that is farther forward than the Camaro shifter box), so installing the transmission straight-up would still require using a Mustang tailhousing. And, if the transmission will be a Mustang transmission, an adapter plate would be needed anyway, so it might as well include the 19 degree tilt as well.
The sweet spot for Option 2 would be for using a Camaro T5 that bolts right up to the stock C2 bellhousing with no adapter. The Camaro tailhousing would still have to be swapped for a Mustang tailhousing, though.
So when do you think you will have a option available to try? you plan to install it in your own C2 to make sure it all works? then sell the set ups?
From the outset, my plan has been to develop a complete, low-cost, bolt-in solution for installing a T5 5-speed in a C2 (and likely also a C1 or C3). I will then post drawings for all the custom parts on the web so that anyone can download them for free. I'm doing this just for fun because it's an interesting engineering challenge.
My progress has been slow because I have only a few hours per week to work on this project. A further complication is that a key goal is to achieve the lowest possible overall cost, since the Tremec TKX solution already exists for anyone who willing to spend $4500 on a 5-speed conversion. It turns out that there are LOTS of options for installing a T5 in a C2, so I've spent a lot of time evaluating multiple alternatives and comparing the overall cost of each option. There have been some twists and turns in this process.
The plan I have settled on is to use a 1994-1995 or 1999-2004 Mustang T5 because these have the same strong gear set that was introduced for the 1990 Mustang, but they cost a lot less at junkyards because their input shaft is longer than the pre-1994 Mustang T5. This makes them not directly compatible with pre-1995 Mustangs, which makes them less attractive to the Mustang crowd. Used Camaro T5s that have the Muncie bolt pattern tend to cost much more than used Mustang T5s.
I'm pretty far along test-fitting the solution in my own '67 Corvette. Right now I'm using just a spare empty case for evaluating fitment, but I have a complete 2003 Mustang T5 (junkyard cost of $300) waiting to go in after all the fitment issues are resolved.
The attached pdf shows the current version of the adapter plate, but I may end up making it thinner (in combination with using the shorter pre-1994 Mustang input shaft) if I find that I can't get the transmission installed without removing the engine. I have been trying to use the longer post-1993 input shaft to save the cost of having to buy a new input shaft, but the thicker adapter plate appears to be preventing me from achieving my goal of being able to install the T5 with the engine still in the car.
I expect the eventual solution to involve just three custom-made components that would require a professional machinist:
1) An adapter plate to attach a Mustang version of the T5 to a stock C2 bellhousing
2) Two small parts for the shifter mechanism
There will be some additional sheet metal parts for the rear transmission mount that could be fabricated by an owner with sufficient skills, or could be farmed out to a professional. I plan to have drawings made for those parts as well.
My original plan was to come up with a solution for a bolt-in T5 solution, and then simply post on the web an instruction manual and CAD drawings for each of the parts. My preference is to avoid getting into the business of selling actual parts. I have hopes of finding an existing supplier of transmission adapters who would be interested in adding my adapter to their catalog offerings.
If that doesn't work out, I'm willing to front the cost of having a few sets of parts made using the same machinists that are making my prototype parts. I would then sell the parts at my cost. The only expensive custom part is the adapter plate, and the per-unit cost is far lower if I order ten than if I order just one.
In terms of schedule, I have prototypes of every part and everything fits, but the current adapter plate design may get thinner if making that change is necessary for installing the transmission with the engine in the car. I hope to get that question answered within a week. I think I'm pretty close to doing an actual installation and some test drives.
Last edited by GearheadJoe; 03-16-2022 at 04:58 PM.
Well when the time comes to make some parts let me know I have some access to Machine shop and recently made some turbo parts for the jetski world. I could at least price out a few adapaters and other shifter parts and maybe we can have a few members test. Happy to help and be a apart once you have settled on the parts needed.
10-20-2021, 05:11 PM
