A855 - 5 Speed

[LO23M8B]

Ok that's good. My comment about cost was not aimed at the product itself, but yet the lack (until now) contact with customer service. Glad you got that part taken care of. Still a ***** to have to remove and ship it back if that has to happen. I assume return shipping is not on you. Good luck with it.

I think they are about 5K now.

 

[LO23M8B]

You could try taking out the shifter stop bolts out and see if that makes a difference.

 

[matthon]

One side of the story?
I copy/pasted emails directly from these clowns, I pasted verbatim conversations and texts.
I also called out Passon in this thread with his member name, and told him about this thread.
He never chimed in, ever, never, thats on him.

I already addressed the, one guy with an issue baloney.

My favorite part, 'I have no regrets yet.'

 

[abodyjoe]

this thread just confirmed to me that it would be crazy to spend the money on this trans. this is not the first time ive heard/read about issues with this thing along with the not being able to get parts for it down the road. could end up with a very expensive paper weight

 

[LO23M8B]

this thread just confirmed to me that it would be crazy to spend the money on this trans. this is not the first time ive heard/read about issues with this thing along with the not being able to get parts for it down the road. could end up with a very expensive paper weight

well I was going to get one this summer but no way am I spending that kind of $$$$ to have issues. I’ll just figure something else out.

 

[Dave999]

Right. I have "about" a 95 Tremec T5 out of a Mustang I am gathering all the parts to put in Vixen, my 64 Valiant. I've compared all the ratios with the 903 3 speed and it should be one hell of an upgrade.

I mentioned a similar plan here
I don't have 5K to spend so i preferd to spend 0.5k
anyway lots of people pointed out the error of my ways and gently took the piss

post no.5 onwards

Manual transmission conversion into 72 Duster

if anything is helpful, you're welcome
if i'm teaching you to suck eggs apologies

Orginal poster, So glad you got your money back........

Dave

 

[6PakBee]

This may be a bit off topic but I have often wondered about torque ratings on transmissions. The BW T-10 with the deeper first gear ratios struggle to be rated at over 300 lb-ft. But yet they were installed behind engines rated at higher torques than that. Now before someone calls out that the T-10 couldn't handle the Max Wedge engines leading to the A-833 transmission, they would be right. But there you are talking around 500 lb-ft in a competition environment. So for street use....still don't know. There has to be a factor that was applied to the engine torque to size the transmission for street use but what it was? I've never seen a number.

 

[matthon]

The point where it pops out of 4th.

 

[Dave999]

torque rateing has little to do with real life.

my motor is a 300ftlb motor and for its 12 year production life sat in front of a 240Ftlb rated 4 speed (a bit like a ford Srod) which had some minor ratio tweaks, changes to numbers of needle rollers, metallurgy changes during its production life to improve a range of things, mainly torque handling and ratio changes to fit with rear end changes etc....
but it stayed as a 240ftlb rated 4 speed
the ford version with slightly fatter input, shorter output/tail and closer ratios was rated at 280 mine currently has ford-ish/ Aussie R/T ratios in a chrylser case.

its a rateing derived by knowledge of bearings and materials, distance between centres, dimensions and ratios of gears, and running the trans at a specific torque settings against an dyno brake for periods of time then extrapolating. the aim is to provide a rateing for torque handling that makes the car manufacturer confident that if it was physically possible to run the trans at say 300ftlb for the warranty period of the car they wouldn't be getting a warranty claim for busted trans.

id guess the dyno work either starts at a destructive level of torque or they work towards one and them aim to quote a rateing in the middle.
i.e the test version of a specific transmission might have handled 2 or 3 times the rated torque with a detrimental impact on its life expectancy
Lifeexpectancy has to be at a minimum longer than the warranty period of the car so the rateing is chosen to give say 5 years life rather than 5 weeks. thus a trans that isn't run at rated toruqe 100% of the time lasts 10 20 40 years and 200,000 miles

as for transmissions popping out of gear....as mentioned by other posters back in the thread if its a cottage industry transmission, do they have the facilities to do all of the testing that say TREMEC or Aisin do
did they have the finance to enegage with somone to do the testing for them.
or did they rely on "chrylser did all of this for 833" so a thick ally case and hang a 5th gear off the back is all we need to worry about.

id guess tremec probably still have a dyno room filled with machines and instrumntation that Mr Borg and Mr Warner purchased way back... and the modern equivelent slots in when the old gear breaks

mounting a complete trans on a lathe running it through the gears and then driving it in a car isn't really good enough. Not saying they did that but it is hinted at earlier

i take the attitude that if i'm gonna fit some upgrade to my car i'll focus on a chunk of more modern OEM stuff from brand x its been tested for me a million times by the people who purchased that car.... T5 for example fits with my needs its benfits and short comings are well known. The tremec 3550 was used as a 3650 in mustangs, and was the basis of modern TKO tremecs. The ford dudes tested that early Tremec box to destruction for us. They did not have an a833 in the back catalogue to do the job for 50 years, and ford looked elsewhere.

if you have a popping out of gear 855 i recon Paul Cangialosi at 5speeds.com could fix it. he is a very buiness minded man who has survived on his great reputation and inovative work for years. he also speaks his mind so if he thinks its crap... he'll tell ya. look him up on youtube, check that workman like attitude the skills and the advice.. and he answers the phone and replies to emails, even to some bloke in london called dave. thats rare, US companies studiously ignore me, its like getting blood out of a stone with most but thats another story..


Dave

 

[6PakBee]

Dave, I'd disagree with you that "torque rateing has little to do with real life". It has everything to do with real life. Ratings are used to determine the suitability of something for a particular use for virtually anything civilization uses. That's where you start. The only time this doesn't work is when the actual service conditions are different than the design service conditions. Then there usually will be trouble.

It was interesting to read your thoughts about rating methodology. 1) use an engineering approach to determine a design for a desired torque rating or 2) go through the steps of 1) and then break it and modify the torque rating accordingly. I can't see a vendor using destructive testing to arrive at an equipment rating. IMHO there are too many variables in a destructive test to get results that are consistent.

I still think that there has to be a rating factor, a correction factor, whatever, something that is applied to the maximum torque value of an engine to get the design torque rating of a transmission. But who knows, I surely don't.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This may be a bit off topic but I have often wondered about torque ratings on transmissions. The BW T-10 with the deeper first gear ratios struggle to be rated at over 300 lb-ft. But yet they were installed behind engines rated at higher torques than that. Now before someone calls out that the T-10 couldn't handle the Max Wedge engines leading to the A-833 transmission, they would be right. But there you are talking around 500 lb-ft in a competition environment. So for street use....still don't know. There has to be a factor that was applied to the engine torque to size the transmission for street use but what it was? I've never seen a number.

Later T10s were used I 4000lb cars with 500lb-ft.

 

[RustyRatRod]

I think they are about 5K now.

Not from this honky.

 

[RustyRatRod]

this thread just confirmed to me that it would be crazy to spend the money on this trans. this is not the first time ive heard/read about issues with this thing along with the not being able to get parts for it down the road. could end up with a very expensive paper weight

Even if this was only ONE instance, how they handled it (or more appropriately didn't handle it) speaks volumes about their total lack of customer support. Even if I was fortunate enough to have the financial resources to buy one, it wouldn't be a Passon.

 

[RustyRatRod]

well I was going to get one this summer but no way am I spending that kind of $$$$ to have issues. I’ll just figure something else out.

We got one member getting a TKX installed. You could always do that.

 

[matthon]

This thread should be a sticky.

 

[mopardude318]

Even though I bought mine 4 years ago, it’s still on the fricken shelf. Waiting on some body work. At this point all I can do is hope I got a good one.

IF I have any problems what so ever, I’m quite certain Paul Cangialosi over at 5speeds.com could diagnose and fix the issue. I’ll send mine there if needed.
Watching that guy work and explain the process is like magic. He’d be the one to fix it.

 

[Dave999]

Dave, I'd disagree with you that "torque rateing has little to do with real life". It has everything to do with real life. Ratings are used to determine the suitability of something for a particular use for virtually anything civilization uses. That's where you start. The only time this doesn't work is when the actual service conditions are different than the design service conditions. Then there usually will be trouble.

thats a very fair point
which illustrated my poor way of saying

300ftlb or 200 ftlb rateing doesn't mean you can't use it if you have a 400 ftlb motor
in the real world the rateing of the box is potentially lower than max torque of the motor i drive an illustration of this very point. but lots get hung up on making sure torque rateing is greater
if you have money to spend you will have one robust set up and you probably won't need to spend again

but you aint going to expose your trans to an instantaneous shock load of 400 ftlb or indeed run it constantly at 400ftlb ever or at least not very often. You'd need an isntantaneous engine stall caused by the wheels being locked solid at whatever RPM is peak torque.

if the wheels are moving you pass through peak torque very quicky, rpm will move up to peak BHP and then it all tails off.

rateing has real world use

but is derived from parts spec and testing theory and calculation for a purpose that is focused on longevity in standard applications, are we concerned about lengevity in the same way.....probably not

distructive testing.. well they used to with engines...relaibilty runs on dyno...run it at 4000 rpm against the dyno for 24 or 48 hours. see what broke and make it stronger. then try 5000 then try varied race track or real world rpms and load.
in theory you could simulate a le mans 24 hour or similar and see what impact it had on your new motor design....
Chrysler Australia learned how to do this from their colleagues in the US as part of the LA and D (aussie six) motor programme how Light an A engine can we make and how come we keep twisting engine blocks on the D (I6 245). there must have been some twisted and cracked engine blocks by the end of the program. vey much run it till it goes bang then re-tool a section of the block casting. which is why we are not running around with early hemi and poly weight blocks and heads, easier prototyping with furan core casting...make me a block with thicker main supports etc etc

id guess you could do it with a transmission as well

Dave

 

[matthon]

At this point all I can do is hope I got a good one.

Ugh, tough position to be in, I wish you the best.
There's just no rhyme or reason, no cutting off point, no production run, that clearly delineate when problems began, seems to have been throughout.
This isn't even my opinion, they've all stated it, just never publicly.

I know I posted videos of shifting 3/4 with a wrench with the rods off, under the car. It had what appeared to be a 2 click thing going on when put in gear, sometimes.

Also, iirc, the shifter was easily knocked into neutral when in 4th, sometimes, but not even everytime it would pop out by itself.

Just trying to think of things that might give you an indication, that you could possibly try while outside the car.

As I type this, I'm thinking, this is horrible that one person who had a nightmare experience is trying to give some kind of guidance to someone who could already be in the same situation.

The goal isn't to make it worse for anyone, damn, we didn't create this problem, but we are the only support we have with this trans.

 

[6PakBee]

Later T10s were used I 4000lb cars with 500lb-ft.

I would really appreciate at least one example of this. I know this is a Mopar forum but I also have a couple AMC's with the T-10. AMC deliberately went from the 2.64 and 2.43 first gear ratios to the 2.23 to get a higher transmission torque rating. I'm thinking about putting the 2.64 first gear ratio behind a warmed over 401 and wondering if that is a prudent move. T-10 information can be confusing. I am under the impression that there was the original T-10, then the First Generation Super T-10 that was developed in the mid-'60's with the Second Generation super T-10 being developed in the mid '70's. But I can't back any of this up.

 

[Dave999]

when you look in a modern trans some of the teeth in the sliders and some of the keys are tapered to pull a "not quite in" gear into gear and keep it there as load is applied
i do not know if this is a universal thing for all transmissions

and there are a few ways to do it

60s origin of a833 probably dicates that this was not done back then. i belive this kind of thing is an 80s borg warner idea
potentially missing, or not enough on 4th ? in the A-855 or on some A-855?

here is the tech speak for what i'm trying to say lifted off the internet as i don't really speak manual transmission, but have a t5 in bits at the mo and i know what i see.

"Once the sliding sleeve has completely moved into the locking toothing of the gear. Back tapers at the teeth of the sliding sleeve and the gear locking toothing avoid decoupling under load".

so i guess its saying load forces the gear set to stay in gear, due to tiny tapers to the teeth/splines and the force can only be overcome by yanking on the stick or using the clutch

would it be wrong to suggest a taper is missing somewhere in the A-855 design.

if this was the problem it might be why there was talk of a heavier spring....! a band-aid fix...!

i'm out of my depth

Dave

 

[Rat Bastid]

I would really appreciate at least one example of this. I know this is a Mopar forum but I also have a couple AMC's with the T-10. AMC deliberately went from the 2.64 and 2.43 first gear ratios to the 2.23 to get a higher transmission torque rating. I'm thinking about putting the 2.64 first gear ratio behind a warmed over 401 and wondering if that is a prudent move. T-10 information can be confusing. I am under the impression that there was the original T-10, then the First Generation Super T-10 that was developed in the mid-'60's with the Second Generation super T-10 being developed in the mid '70's. But I can't back any of this up.

Torque is a poor way of rating a gear box or clutch. I can take a junk clutch and break an 833 with 350 hp and 300 tq.

It’s marketing nonsense.

 

[Dave999]

I would really appreciate at least one example of this. I know this is a Mopar forum but I also have a couple AMC's with the T-10. AMC deliberately went from the 2.64 and 2.43 first gear ratios to the 2.23 to get a higher transmission torque rating. I'm thinking about putting the 2.64 first gear ratio behind a warmed over 401 and wondering if that is a prudent move. T-10 information can be confusing. I am under the impression that there was the original T-10, then the First Generation Super T-10 that was developed in the mid-'60's with the Second Generation super T-10 being developed in the mid '70's. But I can't back any of this up.

there is a section in this book on T10s
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934709298/?tag=fabo03-20

some will break behind a 4 cylinder some are MUCH more robust
problem is they made stuff called t10 for years
the essence of what is says is really.... unless it was sold as an Aftermarket "Power Brute" or aftermarket Super T10 transmission there is no guarantee about it having all the good stuff in respect to metallergy and strength i.e too many flavours of t10 (4 cylinder AMC, Big v8 AMC, 1960s B body Mopar 1980s compact cars on and on) and too many price points to make general comment on stength without ID-ing the transmission and its original application, and then, assuming any restoration work replaced like with like or like with better.
not the be all and end all but a helpful book if you need to take any common 4 or 5 speed apart to fix something. to do that properly you need to know history, swap over years, and how to ID what you have to get the right parts.... this is all covered.

dave

 

[RustyRatRod]

Even though I bought mine 4 years ago, it’s still on the fricken shelf. Waiting on some body work. At this point all I can do is hope I got a good one.

IF I have any problems what so ever, I’m quite certain Paul Cangialosi over at 5speeds.com could diagnose and fix the issue. I’ll send mine there if needed.
Watching that guy work and explain the process is like magic. He’d be the one to fix it.

I hope yours is perfect 100%. Nobody needs to go through what Matt did.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I would really appreciate at least one example of this. I know this is a Mopar forum but I also have a couple AMC's with the T-10. AMC deliberately went from the 2.64 and 2.43 first gear ratios to the 2.23 to get a higher transmission torque rating. I'm thinking about putting the 2.64 first gear ratio behind a warmed over 401 and wondering if that is a prudent move. T-10 information can be confusing. I am under the impression that there was the original T-10, then the First Generation Super T-10 that was developed in the mid-'60's with the Second Generation super T-10 being developed in the mid '70's. But I can't back any of this up.

Super Duty 455 Trans Am.

 

[Rat Bastid]

Super Duty 455 Trans Am.

Since your don’t like my answer, why not explain why “torque” is a proper measure of transmission durability.

I’d love to hear it. Don’t be shy.