PDA

View Full Version : LS1 T56 vs. LT1 T56 similarities/differences



Rick_L
04-07-2016, 07:58 PM
As some of you know, my build has been based on an LT1/T56 combo. When I bought all those pieces they were relatively current. But I've been so slow to complete the car they are not current at all.

So, moving into the 21st century, I'm thinking about an LS engine. Probably an LS3 crate engine, either the 430 hp or 480 hp version.

The question I have - are the OEM T56 transmissions for the 93-97 LT1 and the 98-02 LS1 the same dimensions, especially the tailshaft housing? What I'm wishing for is knowing whether I can use a 98-02 transmission, or convert my 94 transmission to an LS bellhousing and input shaft, and have the driveshaft and crossmember location remain the same, and with that will the engine fit the engine compartment correctly?

I think it might be just fine - that the additional length of the LS1 bellhousing and the shorter length of the LS1 would cancel out - and the heads would clear the firewall nicely and also have good clearance between the accessory drive and radiator/fans. But I don't have much other than a gut feel.

To be able to put that combo in the car without changing the driveshaft length, shifter hole, and have everything else fit would make the decision to do it much easier.

The other thing I'd like to know, but this is a stretch, is what's the most likely engine mounting adapter plate to use? Stock, 1.5" forward, what?

NickP
04-07-2016, 08:15 PM
I don't recall Rick, is your engine in stock location?

Rick_L
04-08-2016, 05:11 AM
It's 3/4" forward, what I'm looking for is can I use the transmission mount without moving it, and which adapter plate might work with that.

chevynut
04-08-2016, 07:06 AM
At one time I was trying to help a customer figure out which adapters were needed to install an LS engine into a frame we built with SBC mounts and I included all the dimensions for both blocks in a post here. As you know, the LS engine bellhousing face needs to be moved about 2.25" forward to clear the stock firewall, if you want to keep it stock.

Not all T56's have the same tailshaft length:

http://www.5speedtransmissions.com/6_speed.html

The shifter is 1.1" further back on the LS T56 and the mounting pad is .7" further back. That actuall might be good for you since it would move the engine forward more.

I believe the challenge for you is that the input shafts are different lengths between the LS and LT1 versions of the transmissions. Quicktime Performance makes bellhousings to adapt just about any transmission to any engine so that may be a route to go.

I think you need to add up all the dimensions and see where everything lands, for all configurations you might want to use.

Rick_L
04-08-2016, 07:17 AM
I think it's a given that I'd need the longer LS input shaft and mid plate, along with the longer LS bellhousing. Or, just use a 98-02 LS transmission. Cost wise it's probably a toss up, and might favor the LS transmission after selling the LT one.

I saw the dimension you posted - that seems to say the change is not just the bellhousing length.

chevynut
04-08-2016, 07:21 AM
Looking at the dimensions on the site I linked, the LT1 T56 is 5.4" long from the mount to the end of the tailshaft and the LS version is 5.3" long. So you could probably swap transmissions and not have to move the crossmember or change the driveshaft for the .1" difference.

Looking forward, the LT version is 25.9" long, and the LS version is 26.6" long. So the LS engine bellhousing face will be .7" further forward. If your LT1 is currently .75" forward the total for the LS would be 1.45". I don't think that clears the firewall.

The net difference in the shifter position is .4" with the LS shifter being further back that amount, with the tranny mounts in the same place.

That all assumes the dimensions on that site are correct.

Rick_L
04-08-2016, 08:29 AM
That all assumes the dimensions on that site are correct.

That is my concern, finding an independent verification of those numbers would be helpful, as all those little differences don't make a lot of sense to me. Why would GM have changed that stuff?

chevynut
04-08-2016, 08:30 AM
Why would GM have changed that stuff?

Why dos GM have 10,000 alternators and 10,000 starters? ;)

chevynut
04-08-2016, 08:31 AM
Paul has an LS1 T56 so maybe he can verify the dimensions for you. Or perhaps there's some other sources on the internet for those dimensions. Do the dimensions match your LT1 T56?

Rick_L
04-08-2016, 04:06 PM
Just checked my transmission vs. the dimensions found on the net. The only number that matched was the length of the bellhousing. The others were off 0.3" (shifter and trans mount) - 0.75" (overall length). All those were shorter in my measurements. If one compares what I measured to what's in the chart for an LS transmission, the situation is better than using the chart for both (more like what I expected).

The chart I had was from 5speedtransmissions.com but I saw it on another site too. I spent a fair time searching for the dimensions but will spend more.

chevynut
04-08-2016, 08:19 PM
I have a current customer that's using a 4L70E tranny, and it supposed to be the same case as a 4L60E. The TCI website shows the mounting point at 21 3/4" from the bellhousing face for all 4L60Es, but he measured his tranny at 24 5/16".

Too bad you can't get reliable info from these transmission suppliers. That's why I have every one of my frame customers measure their transmissions or give me the dimension they want to use for the crossmember position.

WagonCrazy
04-08-2016, 09:17 PM
Rick,
I have an LS1-T56 combo out of a 2002 Camaro in my nomad. And it's in one of Laszlo's C4 conversion frames. I have the stock bell housing, and the shifter set in the rear most position.

The trans looks like this one...

5923

What dimension on T56 are you looking for?

Rick_L
04-09-2016, 06:45 AM
I did some more searching last night and found the chart that's on 5speedtransmissions.com is actually a chart from Tremec! And like you Cnut I looked at the automatics and found the same info you did, and we know it's wrong too.

Wagon Crazy, I need the overall length with bellhousing, the length from the bellhousing front to the shifter, and the length from the bellhousing front to the trans mount.

chevynut
04-09-2016, 07:34 AM
Seems like you should be able to trust the dimensions from Tremec, the manufacturer of the transmission. I've noticed they've taken the Viper T56 off the list I linked.

Here's the specs directly from Tremec: http://www.rsgear.com/TCase/TREMEC/T56.pdf
(http://www.rsgear.com/TCase/TREMEC/T56.pdf)

For the LS Camaro version they show the shifter at 29.39", the mount at 26.56", and overall length at 31.88". All measurements from the front of the bellhousing, which is 5.51" deep.

For the LT1 Camaro version they show the shifter at 28.26", the mount at 25.93", and overall length at 31.26". All measurements from the front of the bellhousing, which is 4.88" deep.

Rick_L
04-09-2016, 08:34 AM
They didn't get the LT1 right, why should I trust their LS dimensions without confirmation?

Obviously having this come out the way I'd like, keeping my driveshaft, shifter hole, and crossmember location isn't the end of the world if it doesn't - but it sure would make things easier.

chevynut
04-09-2016, 08:43 AM
Why are you upgrading to another nearly "obsolete" engine platform anyhow? Why not go with the NEW LT1 at 650HP? :) :)

Are you saying your measurements are different than Tremecs?

markm
04-09-2016, 09:02 AM
Funny you should mention that Cnut, a couple weeks ago I was ready to suggest the same for you,

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/lsx-376-b15.htmlnny

NickP
04-09-2016, 09:10 AM
page not found error 404

chevynut
04-09-2016, 09:19 AM
Funny you should mention that Cnut, a couple weeks ago I was ready to suggest the same for you,

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/lsx-376-b15.htmlnny

Except I'm not looking for a new engine.;)

Show me one NA LS engine that gets 567 ft-lb and over 500 ft-lb from 2000 to 5000 RPM. I've never seen one, at least not a streetable one. I always wanted a big block Chevy and I believe I have one of the the best ones out there. ;)

If I wanted to go supercharged, I'd put one on an LS7. I may do that in my other 56....in my next life. :)

markm
04-09-2016, 09:19 AM
try again,

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/lsx-376-b15.html

chevynut
04-09-2016, 09:27 AM
try again,

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/lsx-376-b15.html

That thing barely makes 450HP and 425 ft-lb....for $10K.


http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Detail/LSX/LSX376_B15/dyno-chart-lsx376-b15-482x244.jpg

This one, the LS376-480 is $8300 and makes more power and torque but still doesn't hit 500 ft-lb:

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/ls376-480.html

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Performance/Engine_Detail/LS/LS376_480/dyno-chart-ls376-480-482x244.jpg

Rick_L
04-09-2016, 12:54 PM
I didn't know you guys cared so much about me having an engine you'd be proud of.

If you REALLY cared, you could send me money, or just buy me the engine of your choice and drop ship it to me. :)

55 Rescue Dog
04-09-2016, 02:51 PM
I agree, a 4000 pound car needs 500+ftlb of torque to move it forward. Too bad it doesn't help it turn a corner better, with the extra heft.

Rick_L
04-09-2016, 02:57 PM
Oh, but those aluminum block engines do help them corner.

55 Rescue Dog
04-09-2016, 03:31 PM
I'm sure the iron block BBC will show up again in the C8, and eliminate the super charger.

markm
04-09-2016, 05:52 PM
I don't give a shit what any one runs who brings their car to a track and lets the chips fall.

chevynut
04-09-2016, 10:10 PM
I agree, a 4000 pound car needs 500+ftlb of torque to move it forward. Too bad it doesn't help it turn a corner better, with the extra heft.

Well, the C4 suspension in my Nomad puts the stock "updated" suspension to shame, so the extra 200 pounds or so doesn't mean crap. ;) And I'll blow away any LS engine out of the corners with 600 ft-lb of torque under my toe. ;)

55 Rescue Dog
04-10-2016, 09:05 AM
Well, the C4 suspension in my Nomad puts the stock "updated" suspension to shame, so the extra 200 pounds or so doesn't mean crap. ;) And I'll blow away any LS engine out of the corners with 600 ft-lb of torque under my toe. ;)
It should not take long, to fatigue fracture the heim joint on the front of your torque arm, if you can hook up that much power.
Hiem joints are not designed for a bending load.

NickP
04-10-2016, 11:09 AM
It should not take long, to fatigue fracture the heim joint on the front of your torque arm, if you can hook up that much power.
Hiem joints are not designed for a bending load.

If I may ask RD, what do you base this upon?

WagonCrazy
04-10-2016, 01:52 PM
For the LS Camaro version they show the shifter at 29.39", the mount at 26.56", and overall length at 31.88". All measurements from the front of the bellhousing, which is 5.51" deep.

I have the body separated from the frame today, to do some work on the underside of the cargo area. I checked the trans measurements against the ones above. They are SPOT ON with my T56 trans.

5926 5927

Rick_L
04-10-2016, 02:22 PM
Thank you very much! :)

chevynut
04-10-2016, 02:42 PM
If I may ask RD, what do you base this upon?

Here we go again....it's always something. :D First the way I do the pinion support on my customer frames is no good and a torque arm is "better". Now the torque arm is no good even though it's essentially a ladder bar that doesn't move.

I don't have a heim at the front of my torque arm, it's a poly-bushed rod end. How much load is there at that point, what's the stress on the rod end, and what the breaking strength of that 5/8" thread rod end, RD?

I think you should warn everyone who makes ladder bars that they've been doing it all wrong for the past 50 years too. :D

Oh, and you should start another thread since it has nothing to do with this one.

55 Rescue Dog
04-10-2016, 03:14 PM
I wasn't the only one that derailed the thread, like on how much torque a 502 has over anything else. Breaking strength has very little to do with dynamic fatigue strength. 600ftlb of torque X gear reduction, plus shock loads, is nothing to worry about, I guess. Poly, or spherical it doesn't matter, because they are designed for push/pull loads. Ladder bars split the loads on the joints, not just a single mount, and it is still not a great idea to put a threaded shaft in a bending moment, period. A coat hanger has a lot of tensile, and shear strength, but bend it back and forth a few times, and snap! You won't find much info out there on bending loads for heim joints, since they are not designed for 90 degree forces. Here is a ton of rod end info. It's great that wagon crazy's project is working out though.
http://www.aurorabearing.com/technical-resources.html

Rick_L
04-10-2016, 05:33 PM
Despite the OT stuff, I got the information I wanted, and thank you for any ON TOPIC discussion.

I get the discussion of crate engines, that's only slightly OT, but where does handling and torque arm design come into this? It damn sure doesn't.

The last time I got into shit with Cnut, I was standing up for you, RD. I now realize you're not worth standing up for.

After running the numbers, it looks like I can get there basing the install off my driveshaft length. I'll have to move the trans mount 1/4" forward - there's already a slot in the crossmember to accommodate that. The hole in the tunnel may have to be elongated up to 1/2" forward, that's easy. That leaves me with a calculated 2" forward location of the bellhousing which is at least close. And I could get slightly more if needed and still keep my driveshaft. Looks like I'd need a 1-1/4" forward engine mount adapter plate, which Hooker sells.

chevynut
04-10-2016, 08:37 PM
I wasn't the only one that derailed the thread, like on how much torque a 502 has over anything else.

Your post #23 was the first post that I consider off-topic on this thread. We were discussing options for Rick's engine and transmission, and I was trying to help, unlike you who just looks for an opportunity to criticize what others do. You threw in your engine weight issue and how it affects handling, as you're so fond of doing.

That's how you always work....you start off-topic posts and question everything and criticize other people's projects when you haven't shown ONE GODDAM PICTURE of your own projects or anything about anything you've designed or built. If you want to critique someone's design, and claim it to be inadequate, show some numbers that support your ongoing bullshit not just vague claims.


Breaking strength has very little to do with dynamic fatigue strength. 600ftlb of torque X gear reduction, plus shock loads, is nothing to worry about, I guess.

It's obvious you know nothing about the subject. There's nothing to worry about if the stresses are well below the strength of the materials in question. But you can't seem to understand that concept, you only throw out vague generalizations. I proved how FOS you were several times with your claims of my alleged "inadequate" designs, but it doesn't matter because you don't understand anything about engineered designs. You still criticize because you have ZERO knowledge of engineering calculations. Oh yeah, you claim engineering calculations don't matter because only driving it will tell you if it works, yada, yada. :p


Poly, or spherical it doesn't matter, because they are designed for push/pull loads. Ladder bars split the loads on the joints, not just a single mount, and it is still not a great idea to put a threaded shaft in a bending moment, period. A coat hanger has a lot of tensile, and shear strength, but bend it back and forth a few times, and snap! You won't find much info out there on bending loads for heim joints, since they are not designed for 90 degree forces. Here is a ton of rod end info. It's great that wagon crazy's project is working out though.
http://www.aurorabearing.com/technical-resources.html

Ladder bars have been around for decades with heims on the ends, and they work fine if engineered correctly. The application is similar to my torque arm. It doesn't matter if there's one or two joints, only whether the load can be carried by the joint(s) safely. So what is the actual load on my torque arm, since you're so concerned? Truth is, you don't know.

Besides, why the hell are you so worried about MY design of MY car? Show me calculations that show that the design is inadequate for the loads, if you have any idea how to do it. Throwing out a link with "a ton of rod end info" proves nothing, imo. Show me one thing that website says that proves that my design is "bad" as you seem to think.

If you want to discuss specific parts, engineering calculations, or whatever, start your own goddam thread and quit derailing the threads that others post to discuss their projects or to ask for info.

chevynut
04-10-2016, 08:40 PM
After running the numbers, it looks like I can get there basing the install off my driveshaft length. I'll have to move the trans mount 1/4" forward - there's already a slot in the crossmember to accommodate that. The hole in the tunnel may have to be elongated up to 1/2" forward, that's easy. That leaves me with a calculated 2" forward location of the bellhousing which is at least close. And I could get slightly more if needed and still keep my driveshaft. Looks like I'd need a 1-1/4" forward engine mount adapter plate, which Hooker sells.

Rick, sorry for falling for RD's off-topic crap trap again on your thread.

It looks like everything is going to work out pretty closely. I do think you'll have to change transmissions, or at least change the input shaft. I remember seeing somewhere where you can buy input shafts for that swap....that may be a cheaper way to go.

Also, I'm not sure about your 1 1/4" forward mounts. Do they specify that from the bellhousing face? If so, I guess they would get you to 2" as you showed. I have seen some slotted LS adapter mounts that allow you to move the engine wherever you want it. I'm not sure what the range is.

55 Rescue Dog
04-11-2016, 05:12 AM
Your post #23 was the first post that I consider off-topic on this thread. We were discussing options for Rick's engine and transmission, and I was trying to help, unlike you who just looks for an opportunity to criticize what others do. You threw in your engine weight issue and how it affects handling, as you're so fond of doing.

That's how you always work....you start off-topic posts and question everything and criticize other people's projects when you haven't shown ONE GODDAM PICTURE of your own projects or anything about anything you've designed or built. If you want to critique someone's design, and claim it to be inadequate, show some numbers that support your ongoing bullshit not just vague claims.



It's obvious you know nothing about the subject. There's nothing to worry about if the stresses are well below the strength of the materials in question. But you can't seem to understand that concept, you only throw out vague generalizations. I proved how FOS you were several times with your claims of my alleged "inadequate" designs, but it doesn't matter because you don't understand anything about engineered designs. You still criticize because you have ZERO knowledge of engineering calculations. Oh yeah, you claim engineering calculations don't matter because only driving it will tell you if it works, yada, yada. :p



Ladder bars have been around for decades with heims on the ends, and they work fine if engineered correctly. The application is similar to my torque arm. It doesn't matter if there's one or two joints, only whether the load can be carried by the joint(s) safely. So what is the actual load on my torque arm, since you're so concerned? Truth is, you don't know.

Besides, why the hell are you so worried about MY design of MY car? Show me calculations that show that the design is inadequate for the loads, if you have any idea how to do it. Throwing out a link with "a ton of rod end info" proves nothing, imo. Show me one thing that website says that proves that my design is "bad" as you seem to think.

If you want to discuss specific parts, engineering calculations, or whatever, start your own goddam thread and quit derailing the threads that others post to discuss their projects or to ask for info.
You always know. Why does the NHRA require safety loops on the front heim joint on ladder bar suspensions? They also require a minimum 3/4 inch joint, not 5/8ths. If your gear ratio in first gear was 3 X 3.70 rear X 600ftlb, wouldn't you have over 6000 pounds of torque on the differential housing, if you had traction? BTW you went OT on post #19, and on every response on a OT comment.

Rick_L
04-11-2016, 06:09 AM
Cnut, I looked at several mounts. Most do reference off the bellhousing face. I also saw three styles of adjustable mounts, plus a drawing for a DIY mount. Lots of choices, something will work. Keep in mind that I'm already 3/4" forward, so that 1-1/4" mount ends up 2" with what's already there.

There is no way I use the transmission "as is", it just doesn't work at all. Either get a 98-02 Camaro trans, or change the input shaft, mid plate, and bellhousing on mine, about $800 worth of parts. Or more if I considered an SFI approved bellhousing.

On the OT ladder bars, not only does NHRA require 3/4" ends with a safety loop, they must be solid eye style, not a spherical bearing.

markm
04-11-2016, 06:29 AM
It really does not matter what Cnut uses on his car because it is a show car.

NickP
04-11-2016, 07:02 AM
On the OT ladder bars, not only does NHRA require 3/4" ends with a safety loop, they must be solid eye style, not a spherical bearing.

Interesting, I haven't seen the 2016 book.


3:5 TRACTION BAR ROD ENDSMinimum requirement for rod ends on the front of all ladder-typetraction bars is 3/4-inch steel. A rod end strap to keep ladder barsecured in event of rod end failure mandatory in all classes. All tractiondevices that are not attached at front (i.e., slapper bars, etc.) must havea U-bolt or strap to prevent them from coming in contact with track

chevynut
04-11-2016, 08:51 AM
It really does not matter what Cnut uses on his car because it is a show car.

Thanks for the compliment. It's a show car that will actually perform when I choose to drive it, not a cobbled up beater drag car.

chevynut
04-11-2016, 09:50 AM
On the OT ladder bars, not only does NHRA require 3/4" ends with a safety loop, they must be solid eye style, not a spherical bearing.

Thanks for that info. Since I won't be drag racing the car, I'm not sure how NHRA rules really fit my application ;) but it does give some perspective. However, the application is somewhat different as mine will be a street car. The C4 differential is supported at three points, two behind the differential and one in front of it. Differential rotation around the halfshafts is constrained by all three points. There's urethane bushings at each point and 1/2" bolts supporting them (12mm at the batwing). The torque arm is 50" long from the center of the halfshafts and the batwing connections are about 5" from the center of the halfshafts. All connections are non-movable, meaning they don't need to articulate.

I did a bending stress calculation assuming ALL the load is carried by the torque arm, and I have a factor of safety of at least 5. I used a coefficient of friction of 0.75 for the tires. I found a source saying 0.7 is typical for normal street tires on dry pavement, 0.9 for really sticky tires on dry pavement, and 1.0-1.5 for drag slicks which I'll never use. Even at a COF of 1.0 I have a safety factor over 4. Fatigue isn't an issue until you hit about half the UTS (endurance limit), which is at least 2X the stress I calculated, and that's after millions of cycles.

Of couse some people don't believe in engineering calculations...because they don't understand engineering. LMAO! :) :) :)

Rick_L
04-11-2016, 10:23 AM
Interesting, I haven't seen the 2016 book.

The solid eye rod ends, along with the 3/4" rod end size and the straps (as opposed to spherical rod end bearings) have been required by NHRA for ladder bars for 30 years or more. This is for ladder bars, 4 links still use the spherical rod end bearings. Difference is, on a 4 link there's no bending, it's either tension or compression.

chevynut
04-11-2016, 10:45 AM
The solid eye rod ends, along with the 3/4" rod end size and the straps (as opposed to spherical rod end bearings) have been required by NHRA for ladder bars for 30 years or more.


So it's interesting that virtually all of them I see have spherical rod ends on the front, and often solid on the rear.

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/64672/10002/-1?CAWELAID=230006180002524994&CAGPSPN=pla&gclid=CO7L5LmQh8wCFQiqaQodDlUCOA

JEGS Ladder Bars & Components
JEGS Ladder Bars are a perfect rear suspension for Street Rod and/or Drag Race applications. They are less complicated than a four link and easier to set up. The Adjustable Ladder Bar kit allows for quick adjustment of pinion angle and pre-load. Includes safety loops that are required by the NHRA. Made in the USA.

http://chassisengineering.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_223&product_id=393


http://chassisengineering.com/image/cache/data/products/Ladder%20Bars/1199-500x500.jpg

55 Rescue Dog
04-11-2016, 11:27 AM
Thanks for that info. Since I won't be drag racing the car, I'm not sure how NHRA rules really fit my application ;) but it does give some perspective. However, the application is somewhat different as mine will be a street car. The C4 differential is supported at three points, two behind the differential and one in front of it. Differential rotation around the halfshafts is constrained by all three points. There's urethane bushings at each point and 1/2" bolts supporting them (12mm at the batwing). The torque arm is 50" long from the center of the halfshafts and the batwing connections are about 5" from the center of the halfshafts. All connections are non-movable, meaning they don't need to articulate.

I did a bending stress calculation assuming ALL the load is carried by the torque arm, and I have a factor of safety of at least 5. I used a coefficient of friction of 0.75 for the tires. I found a source saying 0.7 is typical for normal street tires on dry pavement, 0.9 for really sticky tires on dry pavement, and 1.0-1.5 for drag slicks which I'll never use. Even at a COF of 1.0 I have a safety factor over 4. Fatigue isn't an issue until you hit about half the UTS (endurance limit), which is at least 2X the stress I calculated, and that's after millions of cycles.

Of couse some people don't believe in engineering calculations...because they don't understand engineering. LMAO! :) :) :)
You don't need to be an engineer, just common sense is all it takes to design a better/safer mount. Calculations are not always a home-run, and plenty of stuff seems to break for the same reason.

WagonCrazy
04-11-2016, 01:06 PM
...so much for expecting anyone to stay on topic here...

Rick asked about T56 dimensions. I complied with confriming Laszlo's dimensions posted by measuring my actual setup.

Would you guys PLEASE start new topics if you want to piss all over each other about anything other than the topic in the original post.

PLEASE? it's a waste of my time to rifle thru all of this all the time....

Rick_L
04-11-2016, 04:14 PM
I feel really bad about this rod end deal, because I don't think that Jegs or Summit's suppliers are going to sell anything that doesn't meet the rules.

But, I swear I didn't make this up, at least I don't think so. :eek: Summit does sell solid rod ends, example the Competition Engineering C6150. (Note: I tried to get an image pasted, but it didn't work out.) Also if you look at the Competition Engineering ladder bar kits, they do use solid rod ends on the axle end of their ladder bars. Perhaps that's where NHRA mandated them, but I kind of doubt it.

The other half of this deal is that the threads are going to be the weakest part of the rod end on the front of a ladder bar - at least if you use a decent rod end.

Sorry for all the confused I caused.

Now back to more OT bullshit, such as discussion why ladder bar mounts are never single shear.

55 Rescue Dog
04-11-2016, 04:26 PM
...so much for expecting anyone to stay on topic here...

Rick asked about T56 dimensions. I complied with confriming Laszlo's dimensions posted by measuring my actual setup.

Would you guys PLEASE start new topics if you want to piss all over each other about anything other than the topic in the original post.

PLEASE? it's a waste of my time to rifle thru all of this all the time....
I just don't know any better I guess. Even though there is a lot of forum etiquette out there, I still think of a thread, as one thing leading to another, like branches on a tree. It should be mostly about sharing ideas, to make one take a second look. One thing always leads to another. Every time you change one thing, it seems to cause another issue, that someone might not think about. Thinking out of the box, is all it should be about.

Rick_L
04-11-2016, 04:37 PM
I agree, but there's a clear limit. And it's been passed multiple times here. In all cases because some smart ass was stirring the pot.

Since I got the answer I needed after a bit of discussion and Paul's measurements (thank you again), I'm not pissed, since this isn't part of my trophy book.

55 Rescue Dog
04-11-2016, 04:57 PM
So it's interesting that virtually all of them I see have spherical rod ends on the front, and often solid on the rear.

http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS+Performance+Products/555/64672/10002/-1?CAWELAID=230006180002524994&CAGPSPN=pla&gclid=CO7L5LmQh8wCFQiqaQodDlUCOA

JEGS Ladder Bars & Components
JEGS Ladder Bars are a perfect rear suspension for Street Rod and/or Drag Race applications. They are less complicated than a four link and easier to set up. The Adjustable Ladder Bar kit allows for quick adjustment of pinion angle and pre-load. Includes safety loops that are required by the NHRA. Made in the USA.

http://chassisengineering.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_223&product_id=393


http://chassisengineering.com/image/cache/data/products/Ladder%20Bars/1199-500x500.jpg
Here we go again. IMO, a ladder bar set-up should be illegal on the street, and was never used on a production car, which isin many ways, more dangerous than no parking brake, at any speed.

Rick_L
04-11-2016, 06:26 PM
Did someone say they should be used on a street driven car?

Rick_L
08-06-2016, 07:10 PM
Following up on this thread, and adding to it.

I didn't realize it has been since April that I originally posted. I've been looking for a 98-02 F-body T56, but I haven't seen any at a reasonable price for the condition. Actually I did see one locally, but it was gone before I saw the listing. I did check on the parts to convert my LT1 trans to LS, and this is a viable approach.

Next step is what do I consider for a clutch? Does anyone know who makes the Chevy Performance clutch they recommend for an LS3? Anybody used one? Seems like the aftermarket choices are primarily the dual friction single disc setups from Centerforce or Ram, or the dual disc setup from McLeod. I've always had doubts about the dual friction setups, but have never run one. Likewise I've always thought the dual disc was a liability for shifting.

What is everyone using or planning to use and why?

chevynut
08-07-2016, 10:32 AM
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/ghtp-1203-lt1-t56-adaption-new-version-conversion/

Rick_L
08-07-2016, 12:20 PM
The parts in the link are what I referred to as my "viable" approach. Rockland Standard currently gets $498 for the input shaft, front plate, and small parts. A bellhousing, clutch assembly, and throwout bearing assembly also are needed.

rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017
08-08-2016, 06:46 AM
Rick I assume you have decided to go LS. Do you have one in mind or already have just curious?

Rick_L
08-08-2016, 08:47 AM
Check earlier in the thread. I'm thinking about the 495 hp LS3 crate engine. I haven't pulled the trigger yet.

NickP
08-08-2016, 08:54 AM
Check earlier in the thread. I'm thinking about the 495 hp LS3 crate engine. I haven't pulled the trigger yet.

That's a nice piece Rick, you'll enjoy it if you decide on it.

Rick_L
08-10-2016, 10:14 AM
Seems like the aftermarket choices are primarily the dual friction single disc setups from Centerforce or Ram, or the dual disc setup from McLeod.

I made this comment after doing a quick search at Summit and Jegs, which is where I usually turn first to see what's on the market. The predominant choices were the dual friction, dual disc, and the Chevy Performance unit (LS7).

I did a bit more research on the LS7 clutch; it has mixed reviews. Turns out the LS7 pressure plate, as well as other stock GM LS pressure plates, are "self adjusting", and this is as much of a liability as a benefit. Seems that it doesn't always "adjust" as it should. When new, it often won't disengage enough - you have to wait for it to adjust, and sometimes it doesn't. Also there are claims that it only works well with the Corvette hydraulics which are not readily adaptable to an engine mounted transmission.

The clutch that I saw had the most positive reviews for what I'm doing is the Monster Stage I, which is a non-adjustable pressure plate with a carbon loaded single organic disc. It has 480 rwhp/tq capability, which fits my potential choice of engine nicely.

One other interesting thing I saw was an aftermarket clutch master cylinder which has a 7/8" bore compared to the stock 3/4", and it has an adjustable linkage rod. This lets you tailor the clutch release to where you like it, and the bigger bore gives a bit more travel at the throwout bearing - at the expense of a bit harder pedal.

"Self adjusting" pressure plates were a new one on me. Turns out they are becoming pretty common, especially on European cars.