I was sent a transmission for restoration recently for a 600s serial number car. Has the proper date coded T10M aluminum case. Tailsahft is cast iron but a 64 date code. Ive always been of the opinion that all T10M transmissions installed in the cars at Shelby were alloy case and tail and any cast iron tails were done by dealers that were repairing cracked alloy tail shafts. Does anyone know of an original owner T10 M car that was delivered with a cast iron tail from New?
Yes 5S003 was.
I will probably get flogged for this :D but.... I have communicated with a couple of 66 owners that state that they know without a shadow of a doubt that their cars came with top loaders from new. One was since new owner history.. so take it for what it is worth. My personal opinion (I know its like a** holes, everyone has one), if Shelby needed a trans in order to ship cars, they left the TL in them and sent them down the road because they were having warranty issues with the M's breaking anyway and were in the business of selling cars.
Quote from: Greg on July 23, 2018, 06:39:59 PM
I will probably get flogged for this :D but.... I have communicated with a couple of 66 owners that state that they know without a shadow of a doubt that their cars came with top loaders from new. One was since new.. so take it for what it is worth. My personal opinion (I know its like a** holes, everyone has one), if Shelby needed a trans in order to ship cars, they left the TL in them and sent them down the road because they were having warranty issues with the M's breaking anyway and were in the business of selling cars.
Just so you know Shelby had no reason to touch the trans in a regular production 65 or 66 GT 350. That was something that Ford installed not Shelby from the get go.
Thanks Bob, from a drive train perspective, did Shelby only do the intake and headers and Ford did the engine, trans and rear?
Quote from: Greg on July 23, 2018, 07:42:20 PM
Thanks Bob, from a drive train perspective, did Shelby only do the intake and headers and Ford did the engine, trans and rear?
in the first half of 65 production SA changed the intakes and Detroit locker. SA didn't touch the transmission typically. By 66 Ford installed all of the engine parts like intake valve cover, oil pan etc. on the regular production GT350's. Ford installed the lockers starting in later 65 production.SA didn't typically touch the transmission in 66 ether.
Thank you Bob, I appreciate the knowledge!
Did they all have date codes on the cases? Mark I saw photos of 5S003's T10 and it just had a date on the side of the case not next to the t-10M7. Is that just the assembly date and not casting?
Cheers
Not all the aluminum cases had date codes, the one we used for 003 was the earliest date we had ever seen for a 1964 , 6 bolt application. This was hand stamped on a flange, I have the date written down but it is not in front of me now. This would have been the assembly date, not the date it was cast. Best,
Mark
Thanks Mark, it's K264 2
Cheers
Quote from: acman63 on July 23, 2018, 05:24:18 PM
I was sent a transmission for restoration recently for a 600s serial number car. Has the proper date coded T10M aluminum case. Tailsahft is cast iron but a 64 date code. Ive always been of the opinion that all T10M transmissions installed in the cars at Shelby were alloy case and tail and any cast iron tails were done by dealers that were repairing cracked alloy tail shafts. Does anyone know of an original owner T10 M car that was delivered with a cast iron tail from New?
Jim,
I can't say for sure, but 6S933 (and several '66 cars in that date range) that I have seen have T10M aluminum main cases with cast iron tail housings, which I think were originally built that way.
The aluminum main case (T10M) on the car is dated Jan. '65 and the case iron tail housing (T10H) is dated late November '65. The assembly date stamping is Jan. '66, which fits perfectly with the other dates on the car.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mmB7n9cM1lFE4NXiy8JugoxFGgbgvqzBTlYV0LIN-wA8SG3MDXPSmClTyVfrqkT59pJS39gsUuBp6YfA8vRBaV0VdgiRxEm9a3CkqU2TwIDSm5H3k-8FITc-05ANMYBEy-SgAuKnULHZGp1UqB3_HjR6HaXbenRYELwUTGx3S9Bi4FrOPGcQBMzOcYipwV7DFrhEKiZHgePh7SUUUpHTlxgszE3Bj2CuyYWreeZIkOOS60q3UZToz55tFcDXC1AwY1FZaz8oaQce_9WGweAiMVkYUHhYyehYTkqb2M70fvNeL4-JPnrv4IUiHRGKTNPwY8GYcm-kKywshso-u859eOXa0Aus1l_7Hsc15b9khQs_MSOG4gLlCvfxzsuqZBKLwkw1Hl-yCZLL-h56OViJJOolqzvy2_E_D7KuD2DncnEM-vcDw34Pcd0ST7gEWoJwOr6f5fHJrv3ilQiDDOrgYH3019CBIiLLNUDBkEhiGtvsXe_vn0_a_BrjgN_3RaJ69aIVlDyOYY3MENY0rMGhOQjItgDr12B4eo3yMqkbMlnWRx0NL9EomOJJSXLHzViWhYWXEaHvq5cJrtxYC7GP5YeaM8Ks0w3NkygO5hD0=w576-h767-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Wq6f06iMfwfUckjlXdIxOmXBgOaCr0mk7ga56CXc-XYRVPco1V-jDHJgHEbepATxe_sxYP7ZZ3ngzdWOhMWr8cJFOsxD0SYNjQ_YiypBGTnCPNWfYzgY-FKMrWxm87sXpESr-_FyKQIiXiVEwHrgnOExbuf9RuqTn9wrjteTxulBqGgXBBhAtU4XpWrPX2dt6Wc3g17iJWvjS8kQGK--5luds7lb1iWfRtb6UDzy7zOq9y6d8LSH2e0-3jP4FlP2i7GpkkaF2GIcb6hOqGf5VFyWPaku_dyWmAUyB1jHrfu860Jnc_3oP7JhvgkINp2aC-Gyb6fEvD6W0nqwjzDb3JZGZfLUGbmwp6dj0O9DGmfEnJNasUAulLOOYVHE-DaCphu_8UQbXK2pLBFmO6J1nJbKaueaZN2G41-cLzZzpmE4DaX3CJ9JOqXQgFJ2OGxMKZyVFiFWWCGVzgozjFlkVhqiGBhrYVudWjJF6MgUly5xSPLzTXwyKi0ofyFGT4L4tcY03t376TmB_cjdtqZTA2qJG4bZqOqY_YTJ_BlVSicYw9MvwomTLZ3BbhKsOcJ9LDZN0X8PYt3QpBa2HE2sZxgLxrVTtpxNKDw3Uq-R=w600-no)
Brant,
Can you break down the A1462. I get A=Jan but what is the 1462? Thanks.
Quote from: Greg on July 24, 2018, 09:27:27 AM
Brant,
Can you break down the A1462. I get A=Jan but what is the 1462? Thanks.
A= January
14=14th day of the month
6= 1966
2= not sure (maybe the shift#?)
Greg,
Jan 14, 1966, second shift.
Brant, 6S923 has an all aluminum T-10 and assembly date is Dec4, 1965.
By comparing the Hi Po registry the planned ready date is Jan 12, 1966.
Texas Swede
Thanks!
Quote from: Greg on July 23, 2018, 06:39:59 PM
I will probably get flogged for this :D but.... I have communicated with a couple of 66 owners that state that they know without a shadow of a doubt that their cars came with top loaders from new. One was since new owner history.. so take it for what it is worth. My personal opinion (I know its like a** holes, everyone has one), if Shelby needed a trans in order to ship cars, they left the TL in them and sent them down the road because they were having warranty issues with the M's breaking anyway and were in the business of selling cars.
I am not going to flog you but I am going to explain how the possibility is zero.
Mustangs built on the assembly line are very specific. In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle. All of the sub assemblies are specifically called out and are "in place" at the various assembly stations along the line. There are Youtube videos showing vehicle production. The assembly line was a fairly fast passed and holding it up or stopping it was a MAJOR problem. IF T-10s were not available , the cars would NOT be scheduled to be built until transmissions WERE "in plant". Substitution of a major component like the trans ( and attending speedo cable) couldn't happen without the DSO being changed to reflect it. Assembly stations had parts "in place" for the specific cars they were building.
Now is it possible the trans was changed after it was delivered to SAI and prior to the first sale of the vehicle? Yes , in some "special" cases we know "canibalism" did happen ( though very rare) so the owner could be right too.
Randy
Thanks Randy, that makes perfect sense and I agree. The people that "know what they know 100%" comes into play after delivery and it is very possible that before the car was sold by the dealer that a trans was pulled to satisfy a warranty requirement by a dealer. That is probably what happened.
It's all good Greg. Check out some of the youtube videos and you will see the great lengths "the line" went to to streamline production. Special racks to hold pre assembled components etc. It is an eye opener and far from what people imagine happens( in a regular shop).
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on July 24, 2018, 12:36:42 PM
Quote from: Greg on July 23, 2018, 06:39:59 PM
I will probably get flogged for this :D but.... I have communicated with a couple of 66 owners that state that they know without a shadow of a doubt that their cars came with top loaders from new. One was since new owner history.. so take it for what it is worth. My personal opinion (I know its like a** holes, everyone has one), if Shelby needed a trans in order to ship cars, they left the TL in them and sent them down the road because they were having warranty issues with the M's breaking anyway and were in the business of selling cars.
I am not going to flog you but I am going to explain how the possibility is zero.
Mustangs built on the assembly line are very specific. In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle. All of the sub assemblies are specifically called out and are "in place" at the various assembly stations along the line. There are Youtube videos showing vehicle production. The assembly line was a fairly fast passed and holding it up or stopping it was a MAJOR problem. IF T-10s were not available , the cars would NOT be scheduled to be built until transmissions WERE "in plant". Substitution of a major component like the trans ( and attending speedo cable) couldn't happen without the DSO being changed to reflect it. Assembly stations had parts "in place" for the specific cars they were building.
Now is it possible the trans was changed after it was delivered to SAI and prior to the first sale of the vehicle? Yes , in some "special" cases we know "canibalism" did happen ( though very rare) so the owner could be right too.
Randy
Quote from: Greg on July 24, 2018, 02:39:05 PM
Thanks Randy, that makes perfect sense and I agree. The people that "know what they know 100%" comes into play after delivery and it is very possible that before the car was sold by the dealer that a trans was pulled to satisfy a warranty requirement by a dealer. That is probably what happened.
Greg,I agree with Randy it is possible but what is more likely ? This is a hard sell IMHO. Is it more likely of some rare incident where a toploader was substituted for some unknown reason at SA or the dealer or is it more likely a past owner did the conversion? It is not like the Toploader modification is uncommon with 65/66 GT350's owners up until the relative recent change of emphasis on factory stock. Besides the breakage you have the irritating popping out of second on the T10. I have never seen a TSB for replacing the entire T10 trans with a toploader or heard of a recall for 65/66 GT350 complete transmissions. Also It would be cheaper for Ford to replace a broken aluminum tailshaft with a cast iron one rather then a entire transmission and shifter linkage. I don't think a warranty theory is very viable given the costs and labor associated IMO . Meaning no disrespect to you but it isn't the first time we have heard of a extra ordinary part being justified as original on simple owner say so with not other hard facts. I think I remember reading someplace something about extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary proof ;). That is if one expects other like minded people to accept the occurrence. I am not trying to be contrary for no reason. I don't want other enthusiasts reading to think that this is any kind of normal stock original occurrence. This type of scenario is how these urban legends start or are perpetuated . A common modification on a 65/66 Mustang or GT350 yes . A common dealer modification under warranty no. Do you want to believe the extraordinary occurrence ? That is your right . Ed Meyer believes in a southern Indiana bigfoot ;D . Without reasonable proof it will be hard to prove to others that BF is stealing Ed's mason jars of shine. ;D To each their own .Just trying to explain my point of view.
+1 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" applies here. There was NO shortage of replacement parts THEN. As I mentioned switching to a top loader requires the trans , rods and levers, lower shifter assembly ( the stick is the same) and a different speedo cable/ gear. The toploader was ( at Ford's cost too) a more expensive transmission. SAI "stocked" T-10s so it is a stretch that they replaced the original trans for a top loader. What may or may not have happened between final conversion at SAI and"first sale" . is where the extraordinary proof line comes in.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on July 24, 2018, 12:36:42 PM
Mustangs built on the assembly line are very specific. In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle. All of the sub assemblies are specifically called out and are "in place" at the various assembly stations along the line. There are Youtube videos showing vehicle production. The assembly line was a fairly fast passed and holding it up or stopping it was a MAJOR problem. IF T-10s were not available , the cars would NOT be scheduled to be built until transmissions WERE "in plant". Substitution of a major component like the trans ( and attending speedo cable) couldn't happen without the DSO being changed to reflect it. Assembly stations had parts "in place" for the specific cars they were building.
Randy's comments match what I've been told by manages of the plants from this time period. Would like to clarify one comment so no one gets the wrong idea
"In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle."
The adding and deleting of parts and components all took place on paper. The final list is what was provided to the line to assemble the car. Didn't want anyone to think that these were completed cars where parts were removed and replaced by others as part of the assembly process ;)
Thanks Jeff that is clearer for sure. The DSO sheets are more like "component part scheduling lists" in that they called out specific parts to be used at each specific location where the parts were added. These sheets used the "in plant" numbers , paint codes etc used to ID the assemblies. If twenty cars were scheduled to be assembled , twenty engines , transmissions , differentials , 40 coil springs and shocks , 40 leaf springs and shocks and so on would be loaded to the proper station so they could be added within the allotted time at each station. The station added ONLY those they were responsible for and the car moved to the next station for more additions.
These are done for ALL assembly line vehicles. A DSO wasn't restricted to SAI vehicles , only those that used parts / paint that was not RPO ( regular production option).
Thanks again Jeff!
Awesome conversation and explanation by all, thanks!
Quote from: gt350hr on July 24, 2018, 03:54:59 PM
+1 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" applies here. There was NO shortage of replacement parts THEN. As I mentioned switching to a top loader requires the trans , rods and levers, lower shifter assembly ( the stick is the same) and a different speedo cable/ gear. The toploader was ( at Ford's cost too) a more expensive transmission. SAI "stocked" T-10s so it is a stretch that they replaced the original trans for a top loader. What may or may not have happened between final conversion at SAI and"first sale" . is where the extraordinary proof line comes in.
Randy
I wasn't aware the T-10 and top loader used different speedo cables. The MPC only shows one part number for 65-66 Mustang 4-speed, C5OZ-17260-A, it doesn't mention GT350.
What are the differences?
Thanks,
Dave
Dave, just a different gear, not a different cable. ;)
Regards,
SPE
Quote from: J_Speegle on July 24, 2018, 04:20:05 PM
Quote from: gt350hr on July 24, 2018, 12:36:42 PM
Mustangs built on the assembly line are very specific. In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle. All of the sub assemblies are specifically called out and are "in place" at the various assembly stations along the line. There are Youtube videos showing vehicle production. The assembly line was a fairly fast passed and holding it up or stopping it was a MAJOR problem. IF T-10s were not available , the cars would NOT be scheduled to be built until transmissions WERE "in plant". Substitution of a major component like the trans ( and attending speedo cable) couldn't happen without the DSO being changed to reflect it. Assembly stations had parts "in place" for the specific cars they were building.
Randy's comments match what I've been told by manages of the plants from this time period. Would like to clarify one comment so no one gets the wrong idea
"In the case of SAI Mustangs , they were made to a specific DSO or Domestic Special Order. These orders added and deleted parts as needed to produce a completed vehicle."
The adding and deleting of parts and components all took place on paper. The final list is what was provided to the line to assemble the car. Didn't want anyone to think that these were completed cars where parts were removed and replaced by others as part of the assembly process ;)
Interesting, thanks Jeff
The Speedo gear would depend on rear end and wheels, tyres etc?
Cheers
According to the original owner, 6s1117 was delivered to the dealer with the cast iron tailshaft. I wasn't standing there when it was offloaded so I'll just take his word for it.
Z
I would think that with the fragility of the aluminum main and tail shafts that during warranty repairs anything could have happened at the dealership level after delivery to the customer. I do not know what parts availability was like for the aluminum parts, not do I know what the cost comparison was, but I am sure that a cast iron part would have been much easier and cheaper to get than the aluminum part. The durability of the cast iron part would have also meant that the possibility of a repeat repair was less likely than the aluminum part. It would be interesting to look through those vehicles that have mixed assemblies to see if there were related repairs done. There could have also been times when there was nothing to salvage from a warranty repair and the entire transmission could have been replaced, either at the dealers discretion or the owners if they were paying for it. I would think that if the dealership said that there is a stronger alternative don't you think the owner would jump at it? In those days it wasn't so much about what is Concours correct vs what can I get that will last longer or be stronger.
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 24, 2018, 10:43:57 PM
I would think that with the fragility of the aluminum main and tail shafts that during warranty repairs anything could have happened at the dealership level after delivery to the customer. I do not know what parts availability was like for the aluminum parts, not do I know what the cost comparison was, but I am sure that a cast iron part would have been much easier and cheaper to get than the aluminum part. The durability of the cast iron part would have also meant that the possibility of a repeat repair was less likely than the aluminum part. It would be interesting to look through those vehicles that have mixed assemblies to see if there were related repairs done. There could have also been times when there was nothing to salvage from a warranty repair and the entire transmission could have been replaced, either at the dealers discretion or the owners if they were paying for it. I would think that if the dealership said that there is a stronger alternative don't you think the owner would jump at it? In those days it wasn't so much about what is Concours correct vs what can I get that will last longer or be stronger.
I was wondering when someone was going to play that card. ::) The anything is possible scenario is the easy out explanation when you don't have realistic proof to explain a extra ordinary occurrence IMO. Could a complete toploader have been replaced in place of a GT350 T10 by a dealer ? Certainly within the realm of possibility with the right set of circumstances . There are any number of possible scenarios but you have the less likely and the more likely given the typical solutions we have seen.
It is documented as to what was supplied with the vehicle when delivered by Ford to SAI, those are facts. Anything else in place of or deviated from original can be interpreted as a "day 2" modification, it does not matter if a Ford dealership or an owner did it.
I was not trying to justify that if a Ford dealership installed or repaired the transmission in any other way than "as delivered" that it could be interpreted as being original.
like zray, my car was Shelby built around the same time (s1122) feb 66 (both ford and Shelby build) and it has a iron tailshaft. the delivery time between dealer and original owner was most likely to short of time to replace under warranty, and oo never mentioned anything about it being replaced, but you never know. I will try to visit him today and quiz him. I've had it since the early 70's. phred
Like S1117 and S1122, S1134, also a February 1966 SAI build has an aluminum case and cast iron tail shaft.
Greek
Zray , scoops and greekz ,
Those cars produced in your range did have the alum case iron tail. This is what "I' call the "transition'' transmission. Aluminum tailshaft housings were prone to cracking in racing applications and were changed to iron which prompted the aluminum / iron trans. Some of the SAI catalogs show this combination for sale. By using date codes on the aluminum cases , "I" have the opinion that when the aluminum main cases were used up the iron main cases were used and the cars after 1300 or so and up cars had them. Most of my information came from conversations with Ray Wolfe( rip) of SAI and HP Motors. He was a wealth of "tribal knowledge"
Ramdy
Quote from: greekz on July 25, 2018, 11:42:44 AM
Like S1117 and S1122, S1134, also a February 1966 SAI build has an aluminum case and cast iron tail shaft.
Greek
Add 1114 as well
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 02:14:59 AM
It is documented as to what was supplied with the vehicle when delivered by Ford to SAI, those are facts. Anything else in place of or deviated from original can be interpreted as a "day 2" modification, it does not matter if a Ford dealership or an owner did it.
I was not trying to justify that if a Ford dealership installed or repaired the transmission in any other way than "as delivered" that it could be interpreted as being original.
+1 . I am glad to read that I mis understood your intentions.
how many of our 1100+ cars are nickel gears? phred
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Yeah her tail looks like iron!
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Thanks for sharing that scan.
It looks just like how the T10 in 6S933 was restored:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/khTYc9WdBDd5oV4oZ2_IU81m66is3GnvN_Ztb8MFK0h5CnFAhN2Pbv109L9FmWam8rvCbQEsKBTNGPVmtFSMre7Q9u8nANCzAOia42ZgaWzXfaX3tHKsBwZ1a5IFKLUhSZFYJB9ar3DtK075mtwkRBOqX4DvuW2bKC1Zds8HdDs97GOwJjEHpWjHEi9bUc2zTLuxv2Us9HWqWof-cdKf-jyRhSV-k7yDJZ-awRBbZgMlfTlUzt1Lz5bmmkpLF8eKdu1ZeN7SiNRF2n4RZtblQpI22JAgGpIdJLbJZcuGpZFZO3W1IvTdSQvsYnwMvIAgK16sn67g6VCN42GtZ8DRyRPYqa-aFWUpy-4D0KsBJdQ5_z0wTiifwwoVY6XlWI45RmGzwdLR9575AzX8FGcVhI6y-g_XqIARGwPLJwyoQTr1ws6In54GdjiyPF_Bitktd1AufUwtHxKr5AYl3dbxIh4bkSGYTRsnpvwZ9Z5Tq1BD1snUFPsI_GAXCknP6q3roZDO3DdvgM56KJAtHq01RUZzC2Fv0p6Virgpgq9XbJptpMYOFE9K03phZAUOTQeaUTsJZWm0jl0czdudweEL-3O0xHnctUUCiU3WQmN12N5eYFaBl9VeX2o29V6vTq5LsJi_Vz8ZLQKuQtEAQ4rrMmsbi2vpDs1k2w=w600-no)
Nice work Brant.
Please excuse me if I "horn in" on this thread but it relates to the T10M subject. I happen to have a spare T10M, AL case and tail. The case has a casting date of 7-27-65 and an assembly date of K45 2 (Oct, 4, 1965, 2nd shift) and a tail casting date of 8-27-65. Can anyone give me a range of 6S VIN's for which this tranny would be correct or suggest when it might've been installed?
I'll hazard a guess of '66 carryover through roughly 600 in '66 based on production dates. Too late for a '65 IMHO. Others may have a more narrow window.
Randy
I would think that, since they were carryovers, they would've been assembled at San Jose' before the usual late August '65 shut-down. If that were true, this tranny wouldn't have been installed until much later.
Randy,
The original all aluminum T-10 in 6S923 has June and July casted dates and an assembly date of Dec4, 1965.
Texas Swede
NC TRACKRAT
You're probably right. I honestly don't remember the dates on my carry over trans.
Texas Swede ,
Good to know those dates.
Randy
Quote from: Brant on July 26, 2018, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Thanks for sharing that scan.
It looks just like how the T10 in 6S933 was restored:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/khTYc9WdBDd5oV4oZ2_IU81m66is3GnvN_Ztb8MFK0h5CnFAhN2Pbv109L9FmWam8rvCbQEsKBTNGPVmtFSMre7Q9u8nANCzAOia42ZgaWzXfaX3tHKsBwZ1a5IFKLUhSZFYJB9ar3DtK075mtwkRBOqX4DvuW2bKC1Zds8HdDs97GOwJjEHpWjHEi9bUc2zTLuxv2Us9HWqWof-cdKf-jyRhSV-k7yDJZ-awRBbZgMlfTlUzt1Lz5bmmkpLF8eKdu1ZeN7SiNRF2n4RZtblQpI22JAgGpIdJLbJZcuGpZFZO3W1IvTdSQvsYnwMvIAgK16sn67g6VCN42GtZ8DRyRPYqa-aFWUpy-4D0KsBJdQ5_z0wTiifwwoVY6XlWI45RmGzwdLR9575AzX8FGcVhI6y-g_XqIARGwPLJwyoQTr1ws6In54GdjiyPF_Bitktd1AufUwtHxKr5AYl3dbxIh4bkSGYTRsnpvwZ9Z5Tq1BD1snUFPsI_GAXCknP6q3roZDO3DdvgM56KJAtHq01RUZzC2Fv0p6Virgpgq9XbJptpMYOFE9K03phZAUOTQeaUTsJZWm0jl0czdudweEL-3O0xHnctUUCiU3WQmN12N5eYFaBl9VeX2o29V6vTq5LsJi_Vz8ZLQKuQtEAQ4rrMmsbi2vpDs1k2w=w600-no)
Brant is that the common factory look? Black tail section?
Cheers
The best I can figure the last carryover rolled out of San Jose around the middle of August. So I don't think this trans would be a good date for those cars. But if you decide to sell it I wouldn't scratch those owners off your list of potential buyers. Not everyone is so picky about date codes.
Steve
Quote from: GT350Lad on July 27, 2018, 04:02:23 AM
Quote from: Brant on July 26, 2018, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Thanks for sharing that scan.
It looks just like how the T10 in 6S933 was restored:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/khTYc9WdBDd5oV4oZ2_IU81m66is3GnvN_Ztb8MFK0h5CnFAhN2Pbv109L9FmWam8rvCbQEsKBTNGPVmtFSMre7Q9u8nANCzAOia42ZgaWzXfaX3tHKsBwZ1a5IFKLUhSZFYJB9ar3DtK075mtwkRBOqX4DvuW2bKC1Zds8HdDs97GOwJjEHpWjHEi9bUc2zTLuxv2Us9HWqWof-cdKf-jyRhSV-k7yDJZ-awRBbZgMlfTlUzt1Lz5bmmkpLF8eKdu1ZeN7SiNRF2n4RZtblQpI22JAgGpIdJLbJZcuGpZFZO3W1IvTdSQvsYnwMvIAgK16sn67g6VCN42GtZ8DRyRPYqa-aFWUpy-4D0KsBJdQ5_z0wTiifwwoVY6XlWI45RmGzwdLR9575AzX8FGcVhI6y-g_XqIARGwPLJwyoQTr1ws6In54GdjiyPF_Bitktd1AufUwtHxKr5AYl3dbxIh4bkSGYTRsnpvwZ9Z5Tq1BD1snUFPsI_GAXCknP6q3roZDO3DdvgM56KJAtHq01RUZzC2Fv0p6Virgpgq9XbJptpMYOFE9K03phZAUOTQeaUTsJZWm0jl0czdudweEL-3O0xHnctUUCiU3WQmN12N5eYFaBl9VeX2o29V6vTq5LsJi_Vz8ZLQKuQtEAQ4rrMmsbi2vpDs1k2w=w600-no)
Brant is that the common factory look? Black tail section?
Cheers
That's not black. It's the dark cast iron finish.
Quote from: GT350Lad on July 27, 2018, 04:02:23 AM
Quote from: Brant on July 26, 2018, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: CSX2259 on July 25, 2018, 09:32:19 PM
From the SAI parts catalog, dated 4-1966. Strange how that ad clearly states that the transmission case and tailshaft are of aluminum but you can clearly tell that the tailshaft is something other than aluminum.....
Thanks for sharing that scan.
It looks just like how the T10 in 6S933 was restored:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/khTYc9WdBDd5oV4oZ2_IU81m66is3GnvN_Ztb8MFK0h5CnFAhN2Pbv109L9FmWam8rvCbQEsKBTNGPVmtFSMre7Q9u8nANCzAOia42ZgaWzXfaX3tHKsBwZ1a5IFKLUhSZFYJB9ar3DtK075mtwkRBOqX4DvuW2bKC1Zds8HdDs97GOwJjEHpWjHEi9bUc2zTLuxv2Us9HWqWof-cdKf-jyRhSV-k7yDJZ-awRBbZgMlfTlUzt1Lz5bmmkpLF8eKdu1ZeN7SiNRF2n4RZtblQpI22JAgGpIdJLbJZcuGpZFZO3W1IvTdSQvsYnwMvIAgK16sn67g6VCN42GtZ8DRyRPYqa-aFWUpy-4D0KsBJdQ5_z0wTiifwwoVY6XlWI45RmGzwdLR9575AzX8FGcVhI6y-g_XqIARGwPLJwyoQTr1ws6In54GdjiyPF_Bitktd1AufUwtHxKr5AYl3dbxIh4bkSGYTRsnpvwZ9Z5Tq1BD1snUFPsI_GAXCknP6q3roZDO3DdvgM56KJAtHq01RUZzC2Fv0p6Virgpgq9XbJptpMYOFE9K03phZAUOTQeaUTsJZWm0jl0czdudweEL-3O0xHnctUUCiU3WQmN12N5eYFaBl9VeX2o29V6vTq5LsJi_Vz8ZLQKuQtEAQ4rrMmsbi2vpDs1k2w=w600-no)
Brant is that the common factory look? Black tail section?
Cheers
It looks like a painted faux cast iron finish .
Here's a pic of the K45 2 T10M referenced above and the unrestored case cover looks just about as black as Brant's.
I've seen at least one picture of an aluminum T10 that looked like the case cover was also aluminum. The ones shown here appear to have cast iron side covers. Am I correct that some had aluminum covers and some had cast iron? Is there a range of cars that can be assigned to each of those types?
Thanks,
Steve
5S228 has alum case, tailshaft and side plate.