Convince me to put a TKX in my Dart

-
This is an NOS Petty trans cross member in blue that goes to the torsion bar support

To the bottom right of the red box is a NASCAR torsion bar adjuster screw.

The motor plate is for a small block obviously. It may be the same one in that Nascar Ontario Speedway 1977 poster that is of an old Petty Charger used for Winston Cup as a promo car. Pictures show it was just slapped together, not drivable. Detail from poster in that second picture

Petty Trans Mount.jpeg


093ADDBA-BB97-4390-BB3D-8FA602690530.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Yeah I wish the picture wasn't so washed out, that's actually the "fixed" version that I did some photo editing on, the picture in the book is pretty terrible. Now that I know a bit more about it I can look for better pictures out there of one, or maybe an old Petty Enterprises parts catalog? Obviously with the T56 in my car the original version wouldn't help, but I'd love to have more details on the construction of it.

Oops. Sorry forgot to post pic from PE catalog

0C3D4E93-627A-4A99-917F-A0157D0B348A.jpeg
 
Because of course you have that catalog!!! That's awesome!

Yea gotta lotta old books and magazines.

Here’s two other Steve Smith books. The Guldstand article that was the preface to his old catalog was great info on street to autocross/race info. I had all of that posted my site.

B3C50225-31AD-46D9-ACF4-F1D39800A6AB.jpeg


D00BE149-7D98-4F56-9B02-722CD3FD124E.jpeg
 
Here's the Guldstand Article on Handling Theory I post on my site. Archived on the Wayback Machine.

HANDLING THEORY

Geez.. I didn't think it would copy and paste....


---------------SOME HANDLING THEORY---------------



By now you have probably read enough "straight talk" articles about high-speed handling to be totally confused. Your condition stems from the fact that most such articles are written to sell rather than to inform. This section of the catalog will outline a few basic concepts which will help you make an enlightened choice about how to modify your car for superior handling. Some parts will get a bit theoretical, but the knowledge gained will be worth the effort, so bear with us.

Where to Start?
Where do we start this discussion of high-speed handling? I can tell you it doesn't start with G-forces, gum ball tires, spring rates or any other thing the enthusiast considers central to high performance.

It starts with Joe Average. You've met him. He’s the driver of that car acting as a moving chicane on your favorite back road. Joe is also the typical car buyer and the key to General Motor's plans for making big Profits. They want to sell a large volume of cars all based on the same basic design. To do this they must appeal to the large group of buyers in the middle of the market. Sport coupes like the Z-28 Camaro, Trans-Am Firebird and Corvette represent the most that GM is willing to do for the enthusiast. If GM can't sell hundreds of thousands of a particular part over the life of a model run, they are simply not interested. Their marketing plans rely on volume.

We need to look at how Joe drives and what he expects from a car. Then we can compare his style with that of "The Enthusiast Driver." Once we understand these differences, we can look at how they affect the overall design of the car. The
best way to examine these differences is by watching our two drivers negotiate a typical turn.



A Typical Turn
Let's assume a 180 deg. medium-speed corner with a radius of approximately 230 feet. This turn will have a total distance along its circumference of 722 feet. If you are having a hard time visualizing it, think of a 180 deg. freeway on-ramp with a recommended speed of 25 m.p.h. Assume also that Joe and Enthusiastic are driving base-model coupes which weigh about 3500 pounds. Cornering in a normal manner, Joe will round the turn at 30 m.p.h. His subjective reaction to the cornering experience will be that the car handles just fine. Enthusiastic will corner at 45 m.p.h. He feels that the car leans to much and is not precise.

Why do Joe and Enthusiastic have such different reactions to driving the same car around the same turn? The simple answers are that Enthusiastic is going faster than Joe or that the base-model coupe is designed for Joe’s driving style rather than Enthusiast’s. While these answers are valid, they don't help us decide how to obtain superior handling. We’re looking for a more fundamental understanding. To get it, we have to discuss some basic physics and the nature of human response to time-distance relationships.

page 4



A Typical 180 deg Turn

1webDguld2.gif




It's Only Natural
The basic physics we need to examine is the concept of energy. Of particular interest is
kinetic energy, the so-called energy of motion which is present in all moving objects. The amount of kinetic energy in any particular moving object is determined by both the weight and velocity of the object. It is important to realize how weight and velocity influence the amount of energy. This relationship is expressed by the formula:



Energy = 1/2 Weight x Velocity^2



This tells us the amount of kinetic energy increases in direct proportion to added weight
and in geometric proportion with added velocity. Thus if the weight doubles the kinetic energy also doubles, but if the velocity doubles the energy will be four times greater.

Let's get down to earth by seeing how much energy is involved as our two drivers round the typical turn as above. When Joe Average rounds the corner at 30 m.p.h., he is cornering at about 0.279 g. The amount of energy involved is about 142,785 newton-meters. Enthusiast Driver goes around the turn at 45 m.p.h., or about 0.628 g,
which is not that slow for a base-model car. The amount of energy involved as Enthusiast corners is about 321,183 newton-meters. Notice that while Enthusiast is going 50 percent faster than Joe (45 vs. 30 m.p.h.) the amount of kinetic energy involved has increased by 125 percent (321,183 vs. 142,785 newton-meters).

You're thinking this is all very interesting but wondering how it relates to improving your car. Well, it means that the amount of energy involved with your car during cornering is the basic physical design criteria used in the construction of all suspension components. Think of the suspension components as devices to resist, store and control energy. The spring is a good example. We always hear people talking about spring rates. What does "spring rated" really mean? When we say that a spring has a rate of 250 pounds per inch, it means the spring can store 250 inch/pounds of energy for each inch of compression.

Why don't we use our example again? If we assume that as Joe goes round the turn his
outside springs are compressed one inch; then as Enthusiastic Driver corners, the outside
springs will be compressed an additional 1.25 inches. How does this extra compression affect the driver's subjective reaction to handling? At this point we get to the second important concept: the nature of human response to time-distance relationship.



It's Just Human
Back at our typical turn, we can watch more closely-as our two drivers negotiate the corner. Recall that Joe Average went around the turn at 30 m.p.h., or to put it another way, at 4 feet per second. Assume that as Joe enters the turn, the car takes 2 seconds to roll over, compress the outside springs and come to a steady-state cornering attitude. Likewise, at the exit of the turn, Joe’s car takes about 2 seconds to unroll and get comfortably straight again. Watching Joe go through our 722 foot long turn, we see that it takes him 88 feet to transition into the turn, that he has 546 feet of steady-state cornering and another 88 feet of transition back onto the straight. Joe spends a total of 16.4 seconds in the turn.

Page 5



Of these, 4 seconds (24%) are spent in difficult transitional cornering maneuvers, and 12.4 seconds (76%) are spent in relatively easy steady-state cornering. This is why Joe feels that the car handles fine. At 30 m.p.h., he spends relatively little time doing the difficult tasks of getting on and off the proper line and has a good deal of time in the middle of the turn to make corrections.

Enthusiast Driver experiences quite a different situation. He is going of 45 m.p.h. or 66 feet per second. Remember that basic physics indicates that there is 125% more energy involved because Enthusiast is cornering 50% faster. Remember also that the greater energy causes the outside springs to compress an additional 11/4 inches. Assuming a "linear" suspension response time, it will take Enthusiast 4.5 seconds of transition at each end of the turn. He spends 297 feet of transition during turn entry (66 feet per second x 4.5 seconds), has only 128 feet steady-state cornering 297 feet of transition at the exit. This is why Enthusiast thinks the car is unresponsive. He is in the turn for a total of 10.9 seconds. Of these, he spends 9 seconds (82%) of the time in difficult transitional cornering and 1.9 seconds (18%) in relatively easy steady-state cornering.

The technical name for this phenomenon is yaw response. The yaw response characteristic of a car is the single most important of that group of traits we call "handling" The parameters for determining an ideal yaw response characteristic
are derived from study of the human nervous system. The yaw response must be designed to make the driver feel comfortable at the speed he wished to go. It cannot be too slow or too fast. It must be slow enough so the driver can react to steering inputs; yet, it must be fast enough so that corrections can be completed before an off-road excursion occurs. The "base-model coupe" has been designed by GM with an ideal yaw
response for Joe Average, who normally corners at about 0.300 g. If a driver wants to corner at some higher speed, then the suspension must be modified to provide an ideal yaw response at the higher speed. In other words, we must keep the yaw time, when expressed as a percentage of total cornering time, constant. To keep Enthusiast Driver comfortable going around our typical turn at 45 m.p.h., we must modify the suspension so about 18% of total cornering time is spent in transitional cornering. This is what is meant by keeping yaw time constant.



The Indicators Game
At this point we should scrutinize the primary indicator of cornering performance- namely cornering force as expressed in g's. At the present time, we all tend to focus on how many g's a car can generate. We normally equate high g-forces with good handling. Does this equation really hold-up? Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. We have all read comparison road tests where the car with the highest cornering force was also the slowest through a slalom course. This happens because g-forces are measured on a skid pad which tests only steady-state cornering. The skid pad tells nothing about yaw response characteristics during transitional cornering. Yet, it is these characteristics which are the most important factor contributing to superior handling.



The Skid-Pad

1webDguld3.gif


100 ft. radius

Does this look like your favorite back road?

Page 6



Whether high cornering forces translate to superior handling or not depends on the honesty of the suspension designer. If he designs a complete system which takes into account both transient and steady-state cornering, then yes, high cornering forces will mean superior handling. However, if he uses tricks just to yield high cornering force numbers and does not do his homework on the remaining suspension components, then no, superior handling will not result. Remember, skid pad results are indicators; the real test of good handling is how your car performs over your favorite back road, in transition as well as "steady-state."

How can we judge the honesty of the designer's work? A good place to start is by examining how General Motors upgrades a base-model coupe into either a Z-28 Camaro or Trans-Am Firebird.



A Lesson from GM
It is a myth General Motors cannot design good cars. Their engineers and technical staff are among the best in the world. If you have any doubts just look at GM's impressive competition record. It includes numerous successes doing both officially sponsored corporate projects as well as countless backdoor efforts. You may re-member their NASCAR efforts of the 50's, the Grand Sport Corvette, and the racing Camaros of the late 60's. From our point of view, the only problem is that these superior technical capabilities are generally just used to produce designs for the average buyer rather than the true enthusiast.

When these talented engineers redesign the base coupe into a Z-28 or Trans Am, they treat the whole car as an interrelated system that . They make detail changes to a wide range of suspension components. The Z-28 or Trans Am differ from the base coupe in the hardness of rubber suspension bushings, the rate of both front and rear springs, the diameter of sway bars, the ratio and feel of the steering gear, the width of the wheels, and the size and compound of the tires. It takes the combined effect of all these changes to maintain a balanced car which (1) exhibits



Speed Time Comparison

1webDguld4.gif


Steady-State

--------------MPH -G-force-Total -Steady state-Transition
time time time
Joe Average 30 mph. 279 16.4 sec 12.4 sec 4 sec
(76%) (24%)
Hero Driver 45 mph. 628 10.9 sec 1.9 sec 9 sec
(18%) (82%)





cornering forces in the 0.800 range and (2) has good yaw response characteristics. Notice that they change several of the major system components and not just a single item such as a front or rear sway bar. The total system approach produces a car with an integrated, balanced feel derived from all the parts working in harmony.

The other thing to notice is that all of the revised parts are stiffer than the normal part. The springs are stiffer, the sway bars are stiffer and the rubber bushings are harder (which is another way of saying stiffer). As we discussed above, they must be stiffer to deal with the increased energy generated by higher cornering speeds.

Page 7


No Free Lunch
We need to understand one final point. Every given set of suspension components has a limited working range. As suspension components are modified for higher cornering speeds, the working range becomes narrower. Thus, the base-model coupe rides well at slow speeds, corners satisfactorily up to about 0.450 g and is uncomfortable at 0.650 g (145%). The Z-28 or Trans Am has a firm ride, corners well to 0.720 g and becomes difficult to control at O.70 g (107%). A good combination street/slalom car has a very firm ride, corners well to 0.875 g and feels "edgy" at 0.900 g (103%). The typical race car has no ride comfort, corners well at 1.200 g, and leaves the road at 1.210 g (101%). Notice that as cars are tuned to handle well at higher g-forces, low speed ride comfort is sacrificed.

Under current technology, the twin goals of pillow-soft low-speed ride and superior yaw responses at high cornering forces cannot be accommodated in the same car. The truth is that tuning the suspension to work well at higher cornering speeds always trades off some low-speed ride comfort. We must each individually decide
how much low-speed ride comfort should be sacrificed for added high-speed cornering capability. As a wise man once said, "There is no free lunch"

So there it is, the real "straight talk" about high- speed handling. You won’t remember all the details but you should remember the following three points. First, superior high-speed handling is more than just high cornering power. It must include a balance of both high cornering power and correct yaw response characteristics. Second, a car with superior high-speed handling is produced only by the systematic modification of a wide range of suspension components. Just bolting on a sway bar or some other part won't get the job done. Finally, as cornering speeds get higher, the suspension system must get stiffer in order to handle the increased energy levels.

Author-
Dick Guldstrand



page 8


--------------HOW TO PREPARE YOUR CAR--------------

Over the years, we have found two basic steps common to all successful car preparation.

The first step in preparing your car is to determine the condition of basic suspension
components (ball joints, idler arms, etc.) The successful operation of any high- performance part is dependent on sound basic suspension components. A car with as little as 20,000 hard miles on it may need some or all of its basic components replaced before high- performance parts can work to full efficiency. Guldstrand Engineering offers a full line of heavy-duty basic suspension components which are designed to provide the foundation necessary for any high-performance or race car.

The second step in preparing your car is to decide what function you want your car to serve. This is the single most important decision that you will make and your satisfaction depends on it. Experience has taught us that there are three general functional categories:

GRAND TOURING-This category represents best all around design for high-performance street use. Parts installed on a Grand Touring car must be selected with equal concern for handling and ride quality. Owners of factory sports coupes, such as the Z-28 or Trans Am, who desire additional performance without sacrificing ride quality should use Grand Touring parts. These high quality parts will provide the fine tuning which factory cost cutting measures do not allow.

SLALOM-This category is for cars used in auto cross and slalom competition. Slalom parts are designed with greater concern for handling than for ride quality. Owners of factory sports coupes who engage in auto cross competition will find that these parts greatly improve handling and response at the expense of some ride comfort.
Slalom parts are engineered to withstand the higher energy levels generated by high cornering forces. They will help you find the fast line between the cones.

RACING-The racing category is designed for
its cars used solely in sanctioned road-racing events. Racing parts make no pretense at providing any of the comforts normally expected in a road car. They consist of proven products which have been used on winning national and professional race cars since 1967. If you are a racer looking for those few extra tenths of second needed to keep ahead of the competition, these parts offer maximum performance.

It is our experience that GRAND TOURING parts give the best general street performance results. They provide what most of our customers feel is a good balance between ride comfort and handling. The SLALOM and RACING parts have been proven on slalom courses and race tracks around the world. They represent our latest developments in high-performance parts for these specific uses. SLALOM and RACING parts should generally be used only by those engaged in these specific activities.

Page 9


--------A FEW WORDS ABOUT UNDER STEER---------

It is widely believed that installing heavy front springs in an automobile will increase under steer. While this is true for race cars which have a minimum of body roll, it's not true of most factory springs in your grand touring car will eliminate body roll and prevent the front tires from rolling under. The added traction gained by keeping the tires from rolling under more than offsets the added load created by the heavy front springs. Thus, your front end will stick better.

If you have an under steer problem with your grand touring or slalom car, there are numerous remedies to cure it. The following are the first four remedies you should try.

Remember to make only one change at a time so you can evaluate the improvement.

1) Increase the front tire pressures relative to the rear.
2) Realign the front end to increase negative camber and positive caster (see alignment
specs below).
3) Install heavy front springs to limit body roll and prevent front tire roll under.
4) Install a rear sway bar, increase its size, or install stiffer rear springs.



CAMARO/FIREBIRD ALIGNMENT SPECIFICATIONS

YEAR USE CAMBER (deg.) CASTOR (deg.) TOE-IN

1967-1969 RACING 1 ½ to 2 neg. 3 to 4 1/8 pos. 1/8" out to 1/8" IN
SLALOM 1 to 1 ½ neg. 1 ½ to 2 ½ pos. 0" to 1/8" IN
TOURING ¼ to ½ neg. 3 to 4 pos. 0" to 1/8" IN

1970-1981 RACING 1 to 1 ½ neg. 3 ½ to 4 pos. 0" to 1/8" IN
SLALOM ½ to 1 neg. 2 ½ to 3 ½ pos. 0" to 1/8" IN
TOURING ¼ to ½ neg. 3 to 4 pos. 0" to 1/8" IN

1982-Present RACING 1 to 1 ½ neg. 4 to 5 ½ pos. 0 " to 1/16 " I N
SLALOM ¼ to ½ neg. 3 ¼ to 3 ¾ pos. 0 " to 1/16 " I N
TOURING 0 to ¼ neg. 3 to 4 ¼ pos. 0 " to 1/16 " I N



NOTE: These settings represent a place to start. Optimum setting for each track or driving techniques must be determined by testing.
 
Would any of those books describe on paper how to set a triangular 4-link up?
Mine has certainly been out of whack since install. I have asked some people how to do it and get hopelessly lost in the explanation.
 
Would any of those books describe on paper how to set a triangular 4-link up?
Mine has certainly been out of whack since install. I have asked some people how to do it and get hopelessly lost in the explanation.

Not really. They didn't really run 4 links back then in Circle Track or Road Race sedans.

I'd think there are modern book on that. Especially drag race. There's one that people like. But I can't remember it.
 
Figured it's my duty to update this, since there is now a TKX in my A-Body lol!
Silver Sport Transmissions have been fantastic to deal with, top notch customer service. No regrets, highly recommend!

As far as cost, the complete kit was right around $6k, with everything I could ask for and more. This is including a nice dial indicator to measure bellhousing run-out, a better clutch than what they include in the kit (I requested a 700hp unit), and their hydraulic concentric slave cylinder which is a $650 upgrade.

As far as ease of installation, my mind is still blown. I was able to do 90% of the work in 2 days. From 727 out, to TKX in. Now only waiting on FedEx to deliver the 31 spline 1350 slip yoke from Strange, and 1350 pinion yoke so I can measure for a new driveshaft and get that going.

As far as the cutting, it is WAY LESS than a T-56, or TKO! Like Silver Sport mentions in the instructions, those instructions were developed for the TKO, so the TKX may require less cutting. What I did was, I completely ignored the instructions and cut little by little, to figure out the least necessary amount. Check it out:

View attachment 1716000224

As you can see, apart from the obvious opening for the shifter, the tunnel only needed that minor split in the middle. That gap is so small I could even just fill it with weld lol!

Now, the part that hurts. Yes, the upper section of the crossmember does need to be cut. I did everything in my power to avoid it, but I couldn't. So I still need to figure out a way to re-join both sides. There is no way in hell I'm just leaving both sides disconnected like that. Here is another picture for a slightly different perspective:

View attachment 1716000225

I will update this thread when I have that solved.

Any idea on how you're going to go about this?

Think you could just take the crossmember hump you cut out and raise it up just enough for clearance? Maybe get some same thickness flat stock and weld your own U channel "spacers" to connect the crossmember piece pictured above to the crossmember hump you cut out. Wouldn't be the prettiest job in the world but I would think you'd be able to solve the issue fairly quickly and on the cheap without needing a bunch of special tools.

Been curious about this step. It's one of the things holding me back from buying one.
 
@ESP47 , I've had a few ideas, and some inspiration from other forum members here.

I've thought about just welding the cut sections flat, then making a hoop over them, kinda like this:
1666273583285.png


1666273595008.png


It would have to be slimmer than that, because that will not clear that upper part of the TKX where the shifter is.

I've also taken inspiration from ToddRonn's crossmember, the picture below is from @72bluNblu .

1666273685890.png


@DC Dart also has a thread called "Tremec TKX First Cuts". On the bottom of the first page, there are pictures of the setup he fabricated, which is awesome. Probably my favorite. Pictures below:

1666273749538.png


1666273758102.png


I did however revisit a link that user @DionR sent me a while back, Hooker Blackheart part number BHS578. That is the upper crossmember hoop to be used in a Gen III Hemi swap with a NAG1 transmission. I think it will fit, especially because Holley says that is to be used with part number BHS572, the lower crossmember section, and on the product page for BHS572, Holley says it will fit a TKX! I just got off the phone with them; they also think it will fit, and told me I would get my money back if it doesn't. So I just bought it. The design on that piece is damn near perfect, and it's 1/2" steel!
 
I did however revisit a link that user @DionR sent me a while back, Hooker Blackheart part number BHS578. That is the upper crossmember hoop to be used in a Gen III Hemi swap with a NAG1 transmission.

There is also the BHS588 bolt in brace. No idea if it would fit with your kit, and you already bought the other part, but just tossing it out there.

I don't really like it just based on the thought that (in my mind) you should de-tension the TB's if you want to drop the crossmember. But maybe it is useful otherwise? Guessing Holley has the budget to actually design it, most of their instructions show images that imply they have full blown CAD models of most things so an analysis of the truss might be as easy as modelling it and pushing a button. So, in theory, it should do the job of replacing the upper part of the crossmember. Just comes with some overhead I wish it didn't.
 
Yup, I remember that brace, thanks for bringing it up. The top connection is really the only option I'm exploring, the BHS588 does nothing in my opinion. Nothing that the beefy lower section isn't already doing, that is.

I have to add though, THANK YOU for finding that unit I actually purchased. If that fits, I'm inclined to say it is the end-all be-all solution for TKO/TKX swaps, and I will be contacting Silver Sport to let them know. They were also interested in a solution but have not come up with one yet. ToddRonn told me yesterday that they sold all their stuff to Modern Driveline, so they include that crossmember in all their T-56 kits. If this works out, perhaps Silver Sport can include this unit in their kits moving forward, and help a lot of people out!
 
Last edited:
Figured it's my duty to update this, since there is now a TKX in my A-Body lol!
Silver Sport Transmissions have been fantastic to deal with, top notch customer service. No regrets, highly recommend!

As far as cost, the complete kit was right around $6k, with everything I could ask for and more. This is including a nice dial indicator to measure bellhousing run-out, a better clutch than what they include in the kit (I requested a 700hp unit), and their hydraulic concentric slave cylinder which is a $650 upgrade.

As far as ease of installation, my mind is still blown. I was able to do 90% of the work in 2 days. From 727 out, to TKX in. Now only waiting on FedEx to deliver the 31 spline 1350 slip yoke from Strange, and 1350 pinion yoke so I can measure for a new driveshaft and get that going.

As far as the cutting, it is WAY LESS than a T-56, or TKO! Like Silver Sport mentions in the instructions, those instructions were developed for the TKO, so the TKX may require less cutting. What I did was, I completely ignored the instructions and cut little by little, to figure out the least necessary amount. Check it out:

View attachment 1716000224

As you can see, apart from the obvious opening for the shifter, the tunnel only needed that minor split in the middle. That gap is so small I could even just fill it with weld lol!

Now, the part that hurts. Yes, the upper section of the crossmember does need to be cut. I did everything in my power to avoid it, but I couldn't. So I still need to figure out a way to re-join both sides. There is no way in hell I'm just leaving both sides disconnected like that. Here is another picture for a slightly different perspective:

View attachment 1716000225

I will update this thread when I have that solved.

I'm not sure it's going to actually be "way less cutting" when you're done, especially with any kind of significant upper crossmember. I know I already posted a picture of my finished tunnel for my T56, but take a look at this one from when it was all original sheet metal...
IMG_5987.jpeg


Yes, it's definitely more cutting, not arguing that. But that's with the upper crossmember in place. Also keep in mine I was going from a 4-speed to the T56, so some of the welds on the driver's side were welding the sheet metal I removed for the 4 speed conversion back into place. You can see on the passenger side I didn't have any welds along the base of the tunnel, just at the crossmember where I put in some relief cuts. I made the top panel rectangular just for ease of fabrication, so on the finished product it looks like the two halves of the tunnel were further apart than they actually were. My starting point looked like this. I saved the sheet metal I cut out for the 4 speed conversion, so when I did the T56 I just put it back
IMG_5851.jpeg

This is how I finished the rear section, and I did this because of how the transmission was installing with the engine already in place. With the Milodon road race pan on my 340 and the spool mount K if the engine comes out the top it has to do so without the flywheel, it literally can only go straight up. So the transmission has to be a completely separate deal unless you drop the K and take everything out the bottom. So the opening and removable panel behind the shifter is so the transmission can be at the right height and slide straight forward into the bell housing, which made the rear tunnel a bit larger. Some of the new metal was also because of the previous 4 speed install. But I wanted to be able to drop the transmission independent of the bell housing, because it's much easier than pulling the assembly with the Quicktime bell attached because of its size and weight, not to mention the hydraulic clutch hardware. Same kinda idea for the plugs, the rear one lets the harness for my O2 sensor through as well as the reverse lockout wiring, the forward one on the driver's side is for hydraulic clutch access, and there's one on the passenger side to make one of the bell housing bolts easier to get to. Could you do it without the removable panel and plugs? Yup, sure could. But then you'd be tied into dropping the entire assemble out the bottom, instead of being able to separate the transmission from the bell. More work for sure, but more options for repair if it's necessary.

IMG_5990.jpeg


IMG_6007.jpeg


So bottom line what I'm saying is that with the upper crossmember in place, that small split down the middle of the tunnel is going to get larger because the upper crossmember is going to be higher than the transmission. You may also find that with the upper crossmember in place you may also need to make those relief cuts larger to shape the tunnel. And that means it's not going to be all that different from I did for the T56. I'm sure it will still be a bit less cutting, but I think it will be more than you've done so far.
 
Good points! We shall see :)

By the way, I can drop the transmission independently of the bell housing as I have it, with the current amount of cutting. I agree, it's so much easier. Not sure what is different about our cars that made you unable to without doing extra work/cutting/fab. Might be related to the size and shape of the T-56. I've pulled it out and reinstalled so many times, I decided to time myself. It's about 3 minutes to pull or reinstall, or 5 minutes if you include removing/reinstalling the bell afterwards. One of the reasons I like the TKX is because it weighs 90lbs, so I can manipulate it very easily with one hand while using the other to operate a jack, and get the splines to line up quickly.
 
I'm not sure it's going to actually be "way less cutting" when you're done, especially with any kind of significant upper crossmember. I know I already posted a picture of my finished tunnel for my T56, but take a look at this one from when it was all original sheet metal...
View attachment 1716000752

Yes, it's definitely more cutting, not arguing that. But that's with the upper crossmember in place. Also keep in mine I was going from a 4-speed to the T56, so some of the welds on the driver's side were welding the sheet metal I removed for the 4 speed conversion back into place. You can see on the passenger side I didn't have any welds along the base of the tunnel, just at the crossmember where I put in some relief cuts. I made the top panel rectangular just for ease of fabrication, so on the finished product it looks like the two halves of the tunnel were further apart than they actually were. My starting point looked like this. I saved the sheet metal I cut out for the 4 speed conversion, so when I did the T56 I just put it back
View attachment 1716000769
This is how I finished the rear section, and I did this because of how the transmission was installing with the engine already in place. With the Milodon road race pan on my 340 and the spool mount K if the engine comes out the top it has to do so without the flywheel, it literally can only go straight up. So the transmission has to be a completely separate deal unless you drop the K and take everything out the bottom. So the opening and removable panel behind the shifter is so the transmission can be at the right height and slide straight forward into the bell housing, which made the rear tunnel a bit larger. Some of the new metal was also because of the previous 4 speed install. But I wanted to be able to drop the transmission independent of the bell housing, because it's much easier than pulling the assembly with the Quicktime bell attached because of its size and weight, not to mention the hydraulic clutch hardware. Same kinda idea for the plugs, the rear one lets the harness for my O2 sensor through as well as the reverse lockout wiring, the forward one on the driver's side is for hydraulic clutch access, and there's one on the passenger side to make one of the bell housing bolts easier to get to. Could you do it without the removable panel and plugs? Yup, sure could. But then you'd be tied into dropping the entire assemble out the bottom, instead of being able to separate the transmission from the bell. More work for sure, but more options for repair if it's necessary.

View attachment 1716000759

View attachment 1716000770

So bottom line what I'm saying is that with the upper crossmember in place, that small split down the middle of the tunnel is going to get larger because the upper crossmember is going to be higher than the transmission. You may also find that with the upper crossmember in place you may also need to make those relief cuts larger to shape the tunnel. And that means it's not going to be all that different from I did for the T56. I'm sure it will still be a bit less cutting, but I think it will be more than you've done so far.

The thing he has going for him is the crossmember he bought is a 1/2" flat bar rather than a 1.25" or taller I-Beam section. That height will help some. The Holley instructions show it barely sticking above the stock sheetmetal.

1666305613614.png


I do have one concern with it working though. That crossmember was designed around their G3 motor mounts which move the motor forward about 1.75". This means the TKX in this case will be back further than they expect it will, which could result in the case crashing with the crossmember, depending on how close they set that bar up to the TKX case. Looks like the case is a little wider further towards the front and I could see it clipping that. Hopefully not, just something to watch for.
 
Good points! We shall see :)

By the way, I can drop the transmission independently of the bell housing as I have it, with the current amount of cutting. I agree, it's so much easier. Not sure what is different about our cars that made you unable to without doing extra work/cutting/fab. Might be related to the size and shape of the T-56. I've pulled it out and reinstalled so many times, I decided to time myself. It's about 3 minutes to pull or reinstall, or 5 minutes if you include removing/reinstalling the bell afterwards. One of the reasons I like the TKX is because it weighs 90lbs, so I can manipulate it very easily with one hand while using the other to operate a jack, and get the splines to line up quickly.

Oh it's definitely related to the size and shape of the T56. You can see that the T56 is quite a bit longer and the shift tower is further behind the crossmember, so it hits the area where the stock tunnel has already tapered down into the driveshaft tunnel when you slide it straight back. That's why the opening behind the shift tower had to be so long, as it tapers down too so the shift tower sticks out as the transmission slides back. If I'd made the tunnel boxier back there with a straight down drop off it could have been a little shorter.

I think the spec I saw for the TKX was 96 lbs dry, the T56 Magnum is 135. Although the A833 was like 120 lbs dry.

The thing he has going for him is the crossmember he bought is a 1/2" flat bar rather than a 1.25" or taller I-Beam section. That height will help some. The Holley instructions show it barely sticking above the stock sheetmetal.

View attachment 1716000814

I do have one concern with it working though. That crossmember was designed around their G3 motor mounts which move the motor forward about 1.75". This means the TKX in this case will be back further than they expect it will, which could result in the case crashing with the crossmember, depending on how close they set that bar up to the TKX case. Looks like the case is a little wider further towards the front and I could see it clipping that. Hopefully not, just something to watch for.

That's a good point, I hadn't seen that upper hoop. The end plates on the T56 crossmember definitely make it taller. But I like that profile for torsional rigidity too. Everything's a trade off.

The TKX wasn't out when I bought my T56, but honestly I'm super happy with the 6 speed, and filling a 3" gap or a 1/4" gap is pretty much the same process, once it goes beyond a single pass it ends up being the same amount of work.
 
Oh it's definitely related to the size and shape of the T56. You can see that the T56 is quite a bit longer and the shift tower is further behind the crossmember, so it hits the area where the stock tunnel has already tapered down into the driveshaft tunnel when you slide it straight back. That's why the opening behind the shift tower had to be so long, as it tapers down too so the shift tower sticks out as the transmission slides back. If I'd made the tunnel boxier back there with a straight down drop off it could have been a little shorter.

I think the spec I saw for the TKX was 96 lbs dry, the T56 Magnum is 135. Although the A833 was like 120 lbs dry.



That's a good point, I hadn't seen that upper hoop. The end plates on the T56 crossmember definitely make it taller. But I like that profile for torsional rigidity too. Everything's a trade off.

The TKX wasn't out when I bought my T56, but honestly I'm super happy with the 6 speed, and filling a 3" gap or a 1/4" gap is pretty much the same process, once it goes beyond a single pass it ends up being the same amount of work.

I have to admit, I want a T56/TR6060 in a bad way. But if the TKX slips into the floor even close to what the OP is showing, I might be wavering a little bit on that stand.

Curious to see how it all works out.
 
I have to admit, I want a T56/TR6060 in a bad way. But if the TKX slips into the floor even close to what the OP is showing, I might be wavering a little bit on that stand.

Curious to see how it all works out.
Yeah I am in same boat here. I am pretty much set on a T56 for my car. Then I saw the minimum cutting done on this install and makes me question that choice.
 
I have to admit, I want a T56/TR6060 in a bad way. But if the TKX slips into the floor even close to what the OP is showing, I might be wavering a little bit on that stand.

Curious to see how it all works out.

Yeah I am in same boat here. I am pretty much set on a T56 for my car. Then I saw the minimum cutting done on this install and makes me question that choice.

Yeah I would definitely hold off judgement on the TKX until you see that upper crossmember actually installed. Even with just the solid 1/2" thick "U" upper it's gonna end up looking different than pictured in post #16. But I don't think that BHS578 is going to clear that upper box the way it's shown in the Holley picture, it's clearly meant to go over the shift plate in front of the shifter and behind that access cover. It doesn't look like it will do that in its current location.

To me, you're already buying or fabricating a new upper and lower crossmember, cutting the original crossmember, and cutting the tunnel. The tunnel work is easy, it's just sheet metal (literally was the easiest part of the T56 install). The crossmember work is a bit more difficult and a lot more important, and you're doing that regardless. Making the cuts a little wider on the crossmember is still cutting out a section of crossmember.

If you're worried about someone returning it to stock at some point, in either case I think a new floor pan and new torsion bar crossmember would be the easiest way.

I have more pictures of my T56 install here My "new" '74 Duster- or why I need a project like a hole in the head

And I thought I would point out that I made the tunnel larger than I had to, entirely for ease of access and install/removal. Most of the Frankenstein welding was actually because of the 4 speed conversion and the holes cut for that. And I still run an A-body console...
img_9116-jpeg-jpg.jpg
 
Yeah I would definitely hold off judgement on the TKX until you see that upper crossmember actually installed. Even with just the solid 1/2" thick "U" upper it's gonna end up looking different than pictured in post #16.

Absolutely. Curious how it will work in real life.

But I don't think that BHS578 is going to clear that upper box the way it's shown in the Holley picture, it's clearly meant to go over the shift plate in front of the shifter and behind that access cover. It doesn't look like it will do that in its current location.

That's my concern as well.
 
I am extremely happy to report that not only did the hoop fit, it fit perfectly! Like it was made for it. NO ADDITIONAL CUTTING HAD TO BE DONE.

Disclaimer: I do not support choosing a transmission based on how much cutting you will have to do. This is a multi-thousand dollar investment that transforms the car in many ways, so I think you should choose which transmission you prefer based on the trans itself and nothing else. You will have to cut the upper part of the crossmember regardless, that is a fact. So whether you have to trim the floor more or less, in my opinion, shouldn't be a big factor. I chose the TKX because it is truly the trans I wanted/preferred, and I have several reasons for that. If you want a T-56 the ToddRonn Restorations piece will perfectly replace the hoop (~$600 iirc), and if you want the TKX the BHS578 ($170) will perfectly replace it as well. Or you can always fabricate something. I fabricate for survival, not for fun, and I know I could have never made something this nice and mechanically sound, so I will gladly pay that price for it!

309363330_1136197933662144_8663231270538078914_n.jpg


308014994_524702142418446_3046895768054832474_n.jpg


310832534_2495847117221738_4277607547459195840_n.jpg


307383293_652374866525641_208878417541237505_n.jpg


308582966_1149973279227667_2159532765751382483_n.jpg
 
I am extremely happy to report that not only did the hoop fit, it fit perfectly! Like it was made for it. NO ADDITIONAL CUTTING HAD TO BE DONE.

Disclaimer: I do not support choosing a transmission based on how much cutting you will have to do. This is a multi-thousand dollar investment that transforms the car in many ways, so I think you should choose which transmission you prefer based on the trans itself and nothing else. You will have to cut the upper part of the crossmember regardless, that is a fact. So whether you have to trim the floor more or less, in my opinion, shouldn't be a big factor. I chose the TKX because it is truly the trans I wanted/preferred, and I have several reasons for that. If you want a T-56 the ToddRonn Restorations piece will perfectly replace the hoop (~$600 iirc), and if you want the TKX the BHS578 ($170) will perfectly replace it as well. Or you can always fabricate something. I fabricate for survival, not for fun, and I know I could have never made something this nice and mechanically sound, so I will gladly pay that price for it!

View attachment 1716002480

View attachment 1716002478

View attachment 1716002481

View attachment 1716002477

View attachment 1716002479

That’s awesome!!! Glad that worked out for you, I would definitely have bet against it going that smoothly.

Being able to fabricate something is one thing, I totally could have fabricated a crossmember for the T56. But for a one off like that, to get everything located, with good clearance etc would have meant installing and pulling that transmission half a dozen times to get it all right. Even with the price of the ToddRon crossmember I was money ahead for my time and effort. Having a crossmember that fit, every lined up and the transmission in the right place was more than worth it. Plus being all laser cut and powdercoated it was a heck of a lot nicer looking.

Honestly with the T56, even with the larger amount of tunnel work, the crossmember and the tunnel were the “easy” part. Setting up the hydraulic clutch, modifying the pedal, routing the lines, mounting the master cylinder etc was the more complicated and time consuming part. So I totally agree, pick the transmission you want, the tunnel modification is the least significant part of the whole operation.
 
Awesome glad to hear it worked out.

Looking forward to more updates as your complete the install.
 
-
Back
Top