PDA

View Full Version : TKO 5 speed



Barking Frog
03-14-2016, 05:40 PM
I'm installing a TKO 5 speed in my 57 150. The car has the original front motor mounts and the original bell housing mounts. It looks like the trans is going to hit the floor hump. Has anyone done this and did you have to cut the floor hump out.

chevynut
03-14-2016, 07:46 PM
What do you mean "it looks like" it's going to hit? Have you tried to fit it? I would think that with the stock mounts it should fit. Before I cut the transmission tunnel out I'd change the engine mounts to side mounts and tranny mount, and get rid of the bellhousing mounts. I personally wouldn't want the heavy tranny to be hanging out there without a crossmember.

markm
03-15-2016, 06:45 AM
I have a stock tunnel in my 55 with a TKO-600, I would leave stock bellhousing mounts in and add either a 70-74 Camaro or 67-69 Camaro cross member under rear of transmission. The only reason I would change to side mounts is for a BBC install.

chevynut
03-15-2016, 02:38 PM
The main reason to go to side mounts is to get rid of the bellhousing mounts for exhaust clearance, and to support the transmission. It's especially important on a lowered car. I personally don't think mounting at 5 points is a very good idea because the load isn't distributed very evenly on the mounts. 3 points determine a plane, 4's a crowd, and 5 is unnecessary. ;)

Barking Frog
03-15-2016, 02:42 PM
Thanks for your reply. I have the stock front motor mounts and the stock bell housing in the car and don't want to change to the side front mounts which would have been what I would have done if I had built this car from scratch but it's a done car now and will live with what's there. I do have a rear trans cross member to install to support the rear of the trans. I think I will add a new tunnel and be done with it.

55 Rescue Dog
03-15-2016, 02:46 PM
The good thing about mounting the engine/trans in 5 points, is that it helps with chassis stiffness. The engine becomes almost becomes a structural member, even with the rubber mounts. Most race cars run a mid-plate mount for the same reason.

markm
03-15-2016, 03:04 PM
My SBC AND 700R4 now and prior to that TH350 for many years is mounted 5 point and I drive it harder than Cnut ever will his Nomad nrver any issues, 55 Rescue Dog that's excellent point about mid plates on drag cars.

Rick_L
03-15-2016, 03:44 PM
Thing is, the stock bellhousing mounts for a 55-57 aren't very stiff at all, especially after getting some age on them, even if it's sitting in the garage. Far different from a mid mount plate in a race car, which doesn't have a rubber mount at all.

chevynut
03-15-2016, 05:02 PM
The good thing about mounting the engine/trans in 5 points, is that it helps with chassis stiffness. The engine becomes almost becomes a structural member, even with the rubber mounts.

Now that really is funny coming from a guy who worries about a tiny bit of binding in suspension components. :) Have you thought any about the binding in those five mounts?

The chassis is already stiff where the engine mounts are, and the center mount for the tranny does nothing to increase stiffness in any way. As Rick said, the bellhousing mounts are too soft to do anything. There's no need for more than 3 mounting points and the rest are redundant and don't do anything. And try to lower your car and run full length headers or large pipes with those bellhousing mounts in place. Like I said, that's the main reason to go to side mounts and if you go with side mounts you need a tranny mount.

Rick_L
03-15-2016, 05:09 PM
Purpose built drag race cars typically use a motor plate at the front and at the engine block/bellhousing interface. When a crossmember mount is used, it's rubber because something has to give, and you don't want it to be your transmission case.

markm
03-16-2016, 06:14 AM
My 56 had full length headers with stock motor mounts and a 4 speed when I got it in early 70s. There is wrong with adding a crossmember to OEM mounts, its a hell of a lot better than those auto conversions that were stock ft. mounts and a crossmember and there were 1000s done that way.

chevynut
03-16-2016, 08:03 AM
The point of my original reply was that I would have re-done the engine mounts and lowered the tranny slightly to clear the floor before I cut the tunnel on a "done" car. It also allows the car to be lowered, if that's in the plans. A TKO should fit without any tranny tunnel mods, I believe. A T56 won't.

5 mounting points will constrain the engine/tranny a lot more than it needs to be, probably causing more engine vibration to be transmitted to the frame and body. As the engine tries to torque, something is going to be stressed unnecessarily. Also a TKO is a lot longer and heavier in the rear than a Muncie and needs to be supported, imo. Why else is a pad provided for a mount? A 3-point mounting scheme has proven to be the best approach for decades.

Chevrolet never used 5-point engine/tranny mounting or a motor plate on their cars, so it can't be a good thing, right? ;)

chevynut
03-16-2016, 08:05 AM
My 56 had full length headers with stock motor mounts and a 4 speed when I got it in early 70s. There is wrong with adding a crossmember to OEM mounts, its a hell of a lot better than those auto conversions that were stock ft. mounts and a crossmember and there were 1000s done that way.

And I'm sure your car wasn't lowered either. My 55 wasn't lowered, had full length headers and a BBC, and the headers scraped the ground now and then. I couldn't have driven it if it was lowered like most cars are today. The 3-point mounting allows you to address that, if needed.

markm
03-16-2016, 09:07 AM
"lowered like most cars are today"

Please share the source of you information.

55 Rescue Dog
03-16-2016, 04:13 PM
Yes, I know the engine mounting in a tri-five will not bring the chassis torsional stiffness up to modern standards, by a long shot! But, here is an excellent video on why chassis stiffness is FINALLY, on the forefront of modern designs. It lets the suspension do it's job.
http://www.optimumg.com/technical/torsional-stiffness-2/
The stock suspension, tires, etc., on the tri five, and many vehicles, used to soft enough, that it wasn't even an issue.

55 Rescue Dog
03-16-2016, 04:25 PM
Now that really is funny coming from a guy who worries about a tiny bit of binding in suspension components. :) Have you thought any about the binding in those five mounts?

The chassis is already stiff where the engine mounts are, and the center mount for the tranny does nothing to increase stiffness in any way. As Rick said, the bellhousing mounts are too soft to do anything. There's no need for more than 3 mounting points and the rest are redundant and don't do anything. And try to lower your car and run full length headers or large pipes with those bellhousing mounts in place. Like I said, that's the main reason to go to side mounts and if you go with side mounts you need a tranny mount.
It's also funny that, that putting a BBC on the front of a tri-five would be a benefit to the handling, no matter what the geometry is.

chevynut
03-16-2016, 06:30 PM
It's also funny that, that putting a BBC on the front of a tri-five would be a benefit to the handling, no matter what the geometry is.

I didn't put the BBC in front for handling, it's for the torque to leave your ass in the dust on the straightaways!!! LMAO!

And I guess you missed my analysis of the roll center arm, and how the BBC with a C4 suspension doesn't roll much more than a LS engine with a stock suspension. Sure the weight is a factor on turns, but with a 245 or 255 tire it might not be as big of a deal.

The LS engines are basically "lost" in the big engine bays of these cars and you have to look for them ;). The BBC fills it up and has a lot more WOW factor, imo. I think it's cool and so do most car guys and the public. Show me one naturally aspirated LS engine that gets over 500 ft-lb from 2000-5800 RPM with a peak over 560 ft-lb. Even the LS-7 doesn't come close. You put one guy in the passenger seat and the LS weight advantage is gone. If I was building this car to race, it wouldn't have A/C, 24 gallon tank, power seats, and all the other goodies that are in it.

chevynut
03-16-2016, 06:36 PM
Yes, I know the engine mounting in a tri-five will not bring the chassis torsional stiffness up to modern standards, by a long shot! But, here is an excellent video on why chassis stiffness is FINALLY, on the forefront of modern designs. It lets the suspension do it's job.
http://www.optimumg.com/technical/torsional-stiffness-2/
The stock suspension, tires, etc., on the tri five, and many vehicles, used to soft enough, that it wasn't even an issue.

So you show a video of a Chevy TRUCK to prove a point about handling? ;)

This torsional twisting is why some of our customers ask us to install the AME center sections in their frames. We've done over half a dozen like that, and if a guy is wanting to race his car or just to prevent frame twisting, I recommend using one. The AME center section is the best design I've seen to stiffen the frames torsionally. Welded crossmembers help incrementally, but not nearly as much as the AME center section design. The stock frames are fairly stiff longitudinally, but the AME center section even helps there.

If I was building a tri5 to autocross, I would definitely do the AME center section option.

markm
03-17-2016, 06:12 AM
Cnut, for a guy that always shouts newer tech is better I call out BS your BBC build is yesterdays news. Most all of your fellow show car builders have left the 60 year old BBC in favor of the LS stuff. My stuff may look like its stuck in the 60s, wait a minute that was the plan.

chevynut
03-17-2016, 09:11 AM
Mark, when I bought this engine over a decade ago it was among the best on the market and it's a Gen VI BBC engine, not a 60 year old Gen IV BBC. Do you think I should just trash it now? It's still an awesome engine imo.

What's "old" technology about it other than not having an aluminum block? Is an LS-X "old tech" because it's an iron block engine? My 502 has EFI just like the LS engines, but it's batch fired instead of sequentially fired which really only affects emissions. It has a steel roller cam, computer controlled ignition with a knock sensor, and can be programmed via a laptop. No, it's not like the new direct injected LT-1, but it's pretty much the same as an LS engine as far as technology goes. It puts out more torque than any of the normally aspirated LS engines and is still sold NEW today. And probably more than anything you have. LOL! :) :)

chevynut
03-17-2016, 09:13 AM
"lowered like most cars are today"

Please share the source of you information.

Just look around, in car shows, magazines, and everywhere else. Almost everyone uses 2" dropped spindles unless they're building a gasser or an original restored car. Lowering makes the car look and handle better. I thought you knew that.

markm
03-17-2016, 09:34 AM
Mark, when I bought this engine over a decade ago it was among the best on the market and it's a Gen VI BBC engine, not a 60 year old Gen IV BBC. Do you think I should just trash it now? It's still an awesome engine imo.

What's "old" technology about it other than not having an aluminum block? Is an LS-X "old tech" because it's an iron block engine? My 502 has EFI just like the LS engines, but it's batch fired instead of sequentially fired which really only affects emissions. It has computer controlled ignition with a knock sensor, and can be programmed via a laptop. No, it's not like the new direct injected LT-1, but it's pretty much the same as an LS engine as far as technology goes. And it puts out more torque than any of the normally aspirated LS engines. And probably more than anything you have. LOL! :) :)

Its design is based of the 1963 427 mystery engine, fyi, I will put my carb. equipped 454 Camaro up against your 502 any day in HP and torque. By the way that carb is a 1050 Dominator, along with 13-1 pistons, aftermarket alum. heads and a .714 lift roller. I seriously doubt you will ever be joining me in the `10 second 1/4 mile club.

chevynut
03-17-2016, 11:02 AM
Its design is based of the 1963 427 mystery engine, fyi, I will put my carb. equipped 454 Camaro up against your 502 any day in HP and torque. By the way that carb is a 1050 Dominator, along with 13-1 pistons, aftermarket alum. heads and a .714 lift roller. I seriously doubt you will ever be joining me in the `10 second 1/4 mile club.


LMAO! And the LS engine is basically based on the SBC of 1955. It's still a 90 degree V8 with pushrods and rockers. What's changed but the electronics and the aluminum castings? Still a 2 valve per cylinder pushrod engine. It's just better heads, etc. The same physics applies to them as any other gas engine. The step up was when they started supercharging them, imo.

I see you can't explain what's so different about a Ramjet 502 and an LS engine, so you change the subject and claim that your non-streetable old tech BBC is so bad ass. That's what I expected. What HP and torque do you get with that carbed radical boat anchor that probably can't even idle, and can you prove it? If I wanted to, I could build a modern EFI 502 to leave your car in the smoke.

Come on mark, tell me what's so different about my 502 than an iron block LS engine that makes it "old tech".

chevynut
03-17-2016, 12:41 PM
Cat got your tongue Mark? ;)

I have always been a BBC fan and I wanted to build the most modern EFI-equipped BBC that I could for my Nomad. So I chose the Ramjet 502 as the base engine.

As I recall, the Gen VI big block was introduced about the same time as the LS-1, around 1996. From a gas engine technology perspective, there isn't that much difference between them. Sure LS heads flow well, but so do BBC heads especially with the 2.25" valves. Both are 90 degree V8 pushrod engines with rocker arms. The Ramjet 502 has a forged crank, rods, and pistons as do the LS engines. Both have steel roller cams and timing chains. Both have 1-piece rear main seals. Both have EFI and computer controlled distributors. I could make the 502 sequential firing if I wanted to with a FAST controller and crank sensor, but I see no need for it.

So where's the big difference since you claim the LS engines are so superior technologically? Compared to your old-tech 454, they are. ;)

55 Rescue Dog
03-17-2016, 02:40 PM
Cat got your tongue Mark? ;)

I have always been a BBC fan and I wanted to build the most modern EFI-equipped BBC that I could for my Nomad. So I chose the Ramjet 502 as the base engine.

As I recall, the Gen VI big block was introduced about the same time as the LS-1, around 1996. From a gas engine technology perspective, there isn't that much difference between them. Sure LS heads flow well, but so do BBC heads especially with the 2.25" valves. Both are 90 degree V8 pushrod engines with rocker arms. The Ramjet 502 has a forged crank, rods, and pistons as do the LS engines. Both have steel roller cams and timing chains. Both have 1-piece rear main seals. Both have EFI and computer controlled distributors. I could make the 502 sequential firing if I wanted to with a FAST controller and crank sensor, but I see no need for it.

So where's the big difference since you claim the LS engines are so superior technologically? Compared to your old-tech 454, they are. ;)
Actually, other than a couple hundred pounds, it should be a great engine! But, the best BBC ever produced was, internally balanced 427 cu in L-88!
When I was nineteen in the service I built 2 Vette 427 cu in engines in California 1973. Speed shops, and engine builders were on every block. It was truly amazing.
Had a cam custom ground at Sig Erson a couple miles away from the base hobby shop. Anyway, both those 427's ran so great, it was like having a supercharged SBC, other than the weight. The first time I drove a C3 with a 454, I was very disappointed that it wasn't as smooth as the 427, and wound up much slower too, even though the torque was there.
I'm sorry, if I am the only one that can't stay on the OP's posts.

markm
03-17-2016, 03:21 PM
Now who is changing the rules, don't have any dyno sheets but I do have a fistful of mid 10 second 1/4 mile ET slips and you can easily figure HP from there given 3600 pounds of car and driver. You can bolt on any induction you want , but you cannot change the fact a BBC is early 60 tech. I an not an LS expert but 6 bolt mains, no dist. crank driven oil pump, to name a few differences.

chevynut
03-17-2016, 03:31 PM
Actually, other than a couple hundred pounds, it should be a great engine! But, the best BBC ever produced was, internally balanced 427 cu in L-88!

Best? Depends on what your criteria is. First, it had a toilet-stopper carb on it. The heads don't even compare to what's available today for BBCs. The compression is too high for today's gas, and it had a flat-tappet cam that needed adjustment in it. IMO the Gen VI is a much better engine. It runs on pump gas, has a roller cam, one-piece seal, and uses the same forged components. What's not to like?

I had a 55K mile L-72 '68 435HP 427 that I sold to buy my 502. It was rated 10HP higher than the L-88 with the tri-power manifold and I think it was the same base engine. I sold it to a Corvette restored who needed it more than I did.


The first time I drove a C3 with a 454, I was very disappointed that it wasn't as smooth as the 427, and wound up much slower too, even though the torque was there.

The torque obviously wasn't there, because if it was the engine would have "wound up" at the same rate with the same gear ratios. You won't "feel" the difference between an internally or externally balanced engine from inside the car...they're both balanced.


I'm sorry, if I am the only one that can't stay on the OP's posts.

Yeah, like your BBC post was on topic? ;) I tried to stay on topic by discussing how to remedy the OPs problem. It's you guys who took it off-topic. His question had nothing to do with torque plates, twisting of a truck bed, or how a BBC affects handling. But it was related to headers and engine mounting and lowering a car. You injected irrelevant info and Mark took his typical detour and started the LS vs BBC discussion, but it looks like he got shut down. :)

55 Rescue Dog
03-17-2016, 04:18 PM
I would seem to think, that possibly the L-88 was slightly under rated, and no matter how you slice it, and there is no way a externally balanced engine is a better design, even if it can make more power. If NASCAR ran a externally balanced engine, I would be impressed.
Inline sixes rock, because they are a natural balanced design. I was shocked at the 6 cylinder diesel engine factory I worked at, how many ounces of steel they had to drill out of a crankshaft, only to turn at 1800 rpm.

chevynut
03-18-2016, 08:45 AM
I would seem to think, that possibly the L-88 was slightly under rated,

The L-88, like the ZL-1 were both rated at 430HP. The L-71 (which is what I had, not the L-72) was, according to Chevy, the most powerful 427 rated at 435 HP. The L-88 had 12.5:1 compression and aluminum heads while the L-71 was 11:1 with iron heads, so it's hard to say which was more powerful since the L-71 had the Tri-power intake. I think the heads and valves were similar open-chamber designs. Both engines were rated at 460 ft-lb. 5HP isn't worth quibbling over, and both engines were pretty impressive for their time. Wish I'd hung onto it another few more years as I could have sold it for a lot more.


there is no way a externally balanced engine is a better design, even if it can make more power.

Nobody said external balancing was a better design. There you go again with your "better" or "best" nonsense. Internal engine constraints necessitate external balancing for a lot of engines, the alternative being having to add heavy metal to holes in the crankshaft counterweights which adds cost. External balancing works fine for lots of engines and millions and millions have been used as street and race engines for decades. Of course, if you're building a race engine an internally balanced one would be a better way to go, especially for an endurance race. But not many of us are building all-out race engines.

55 Rescue Dog
03-18-2016, 09:12 AM
The L-88 actual rating was closer to 570hp @ 6400rpm. Could probably hit 600hp on E-85. Here is a link to the L-88 specs. http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/l88/l88engine.html

chevynut
03-18-2016, 09:25 AM
Now who is changing the rules, don't have any dyno sheets but I do have a fistful of mid 10 second 1/4 mile ET slips and you can easily figure HP from there given 3600 pounds of car and driver.

I figured you don't have any dyno sheets, and without them you're just talking out of your butt.;) What is your best 1/4 mile time, and what is your trap speed? What HP are you claiming it has? The calculators out there just estimate HP, and assume some percentage drivetrain loss. Unless you put it on a dyno, it's just an estimate.

But I really don't give a shit about your non-streetable radical 1/4-mile engine based on 60's technology. The first thing I'd ditch is that toilet-float antiquated carb. You probably can't even drive it on the street.


You can bolt on any induction you want , but you cannot change the fact a BBC is early 60 tech. I an not an LS expert but 6 bolt mains, no dist. crank driven oil pump, to name a few differences.

You're so ignorant about technology it's funny ;). ANY internal combustion gas engine is "old technology". They were built in the early 1900's.

The significant changes since the 60's were EFI which wasn't even around until the mid 80's, and computerized ignition systems. O2 sensors and knock sensors are other improvements. Sure the basic big block is similar to the 60's engines, but it's been improved significantly since those engines came out. The LS engines are just an incremental improvement over the Gen 2 smallblocks imo with the main difference being aluminum block and coil on plug ignition...but it's still computerized. Changes in design had to be made to make the aluminum blocks reliable.

IMO 6-bolt mains aren't "technology", its a different block design that's probably necessitated by the aluminum blocks that aren't as rigid as iron blocks. GM did a lot of things to ENABLE aluminum blocks for lighter weight. So if someone put 8 main bolts on an engine, is that "new technology" to you?

How is a crank-driven oil pump "new technology"? I'm sure other engines in the past used crank-driven oil pumps. What is the gain? Chevy HAD TO go to a crank driven pump since they eliminated the distributor that drove the pumps in V8 engines since 1955. Dry sump engines use external crank-driven oil pumps but they've been around for decades. GM V6 engines have used crank-driven oil pumps for over 25 years and I'm sure there are much older examples.

I could add distributorless ignition and coil on plug to my BBC and there are kits to do that. Would that suddenly make it a "modern" engine in your mind?

You seem to be stuck on some bogus belief that the block defines the engine technology. It's a lot more than that. The new LT-1 is probably not a lot different than the LS engines in block design, but the technology difference comes from VVT and direct injection. LS engine technology really hasn't changed much since 1996 (that's 20 years), the parts have just gotten better.

The BBC block design is a proven, solid design. There's no affordable alternative to it for big engines. I think a modern BBC engine with EFI, computerized ignition, O2 sensor, knock sensor, steel roller cam, one-piece main seal, and much better gasketing is a major technology improvement over the 60's BBCs for a guy wanting over 454 cubes and the torque that it provides without supercharging.

chevynut
03-18-2016, 09:49 AM
The L-88 actual rating was closer to 570hp @ 6400rpm.

Here's the real deal...557 HP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pji1mm5DwAc

"The engine actually did make 430 horsepower at 5,200 rpm, but GM neglected to mention that its power peak was around 6,500 rpm where it made over 500 horsepower. "

55 Rescue Dog
03-18-2016, 02:57 PM
Here's the real deal...557 HP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pji1mm5DwAc

"The engine actually did make 430 horsepower at 5,200 rpm, but GM neglected to mention that its power peak was around 6,500 rpm where it made over 500 horsepower. "
The L-88/ZL-1 was a BBC, that revved like a SBC, also underated LT-1. The 502/572 makes great torque for a heavy vehicle, but the fun is over at 5500rpm.

chevynut
03-18-2016, 03:12 PM
The L-88/ZL-1 was a BBC, that revved like a SBC, also underated LT-1. The 502/572 makes great torque for a heavy vehicle, but the fun is over at 5500rpm.

Not sure what you mean by "under-rated" but the '70 LT-1 produced under 370 HP with headers, no accessories, and no air filter. I had a '70 LT-1 at one time and it performed much better than my Z/28's 302.

"Despite a factory (gross) rating of 370 hp, the LT-1 produced almost exactly the same peak power as the LT1, with a peak of 353 hp at 5,600 rpm. In the torque department, the '70 LT-1 offered 292 lb-ft at 4,100 rpm, bettering the LT1 by as much as 13 lb-ft. Torque production from the LT-1 exceeded 350 lb-ft all the way up to 5,300 rpm, but like the LT1, power output from the LT-1 fell flat past 5,000 rpm."

"In the torque department, the '70 LT-1 produced 392 lb-ft at 4,100 rpm, compared with 379 lb-ft at 3,800 rpm for the LT1. In the midrange, the high-compression LT-1 offered as much as 13 extra lb-ft, but the difference was just 2 hp at 6,000 rpm."

http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/vemp-1008-1970-gm-350-small-block-engine/

Rick_L
03-21-2016, 06:07 PM
Except for the not all that modern EFI system, there's almost no "new technology" in a Ram Jet 502 compared to a 60s/70s Mark IV BBC. The only thing new is more cubic inches, which isn't exactly revolutionary. A 454 stroked to 496 with EFI would be essentially the same engine.

And let's face it, there's a full menu of aftermarket cam/valve train stuff as well as head castings that you could use on either one for just about any goal you like.

Both of you need to get over it.