Page 3 of 6

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:45 am
by Joe Gopan
Those spacers did vary in thickness even when bought thru JEEP.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:01 am
by donk_316
The rails and screws are from Rons shop. They are not a Bristol style but hex for obvious reasons.

Even with the screws “screwed in”. The shift forks (especially the rev - neutral - 1st fork) move noticeably.
I roughly measured the movement from one extreme to the next at 0.050”.

The 2-3 fork wiggles less on the rail. I’m talking main rails here and not the guide rail (which is also new)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:05 am
by Chuck Lutz
Mike....further up this very thread, I posted the thicknesses of some of the SPACERS we found in dismantled T84s. They represent the thicknesses of course, but we did find more than ONE of many of them in some widths. There is QUITE a difference between them and since there is NO OTHER part that goes on the main shaft to adjust the slop on 2nd gear synchro, it would seem that by default alone, this was the method in which the assemblies were brought into spec.

If anyone feels this may not be a valid approach, given that examples of different thicknesses of the SPACER can be found even today, I would ask them how they can account for those differences.

To respond to your question about why there is only one part number for the different SPACER sizes, I would point out that there Is only ONE part number for the front bearing retainer (talking about the WG, not Ford), yet if you measure the DEPTH to where the front bearing snap ring is to be captured, they are all over the place. I went through a box of them at Mike Stopforth's years ago and found that of the NINETEEN front bearing retainers identified as being "T84G-6E", there was the following difference:
0.056"
0.057"
0.058"
0.060"
0.061"
0.063"
0.064"
0.065"
0.066"

All share the same part number!

(PS, the GPW front bearing retainers are invariably all 0.060", which if you do the math on the thickness of the ORIGINAL bearing snap rings and front gaskets, will secure the snap ring and keep the main gear from any axial play and from spinning and wallowing out the case. This insures that when you set the main shaft slop that you are doing that to a captured main gear/3rd gear & blocking ring assembly.

Today, a builder would be wise to mill down the front bearing retainer to allow a proper depth of 0.060" to capture the snap ring as noted in the paragraph above.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:30 am
by Wolfman
The post back on page 1 is what sparked my question, Chuck. You had them listed as a thickness of .150" to .205". A .055" difference. That is quite a spread but when you are looking at one at a time, not that obvious. I don't have a pile of spacers to compare.
I did a T-84 a while back that required the addition of an .080" shim to get the 3rd synchronizer ring like I thought it should be.
Assume ( there is that word ) bit me again. I figured one part number, one thickness.
Maybe 1940s quality control ??
Anyway, it's a good day. I learned something new !

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:46 am
by artificer
kiMike....you've been round the block once or twice & can actaully fix things perfectly due to knowledge & experience.

That is where we can help DIY guys 'willing' to learn.

For example pistons for Chrysler engines in the 60's were top stamped ABCDEF etc. for fine fitting to new engines on the assembly line.

It is also important to know:
Air gap measurements have always been used in factory assembly.

No one on here knows the way it was done during the early 40's.
Perhap the Jeep Whisperer knows from his fabulous personal relationship with Barney Roos?

With transmissions & when trying to help questioners/learners on here there is a reason for using a dummy bearing or as would be used in a transmission shop doing multiple units, a turned a replica piece of solid mild steel.

Just that fitted to the mainshaft with nothing else except the circlip & clamped to the transmission housing would allow one to get appropriate acurate measurements to establish spacer measurements [both sides of the bearing/spacer] taking into account slingers or anything else.

In this day & age we'd turn up the required calculated spacers either side, fit, check torque & be done. None of this scouting around rubbish looking for diffent shim stuff!

Mechanics like you Marty, Ian & myself have done stuff like this many times & amateurs especially those with 17 or more years of G experience, trying to help, that we all appreciate, actually continually confuse others & hinder learning, in my opinion.

The OP got it right eventually.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:21 am
by Joe Gopan
B.C.A. lists different thickness snap rings in order to tweak the MD Snap Ring fit. 635846 is the one normally used by the factory for the T-84. large T-84 M.D. Gear Snap Ring.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:42 am
by artificer
More confusion, to something that was solved by the OP shimming a bit more using what was @ hand & getting the mainshaft to correct depth.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:34 am
by Chuck Lutz
It sucks the wind out of a blowhards' argument when FACTS turn up, doesn't it?
While Mike felt he actually learned some FACTS AND WAS APPRECIATIVE as are most people, there is always ONE guy claiming "more confusion" in a desperate attempt to discredit anyone who isn't in his view "worthy" of any credit for producing FACTS about the subject at hand. (that would consistently be Joel and myself)

It might be interesting to note who brought the suggestion to ream out your WWII Federal bearing to make the fitting of the main shaft to the 3rd gear & blocking ring easy and not require a puller but I'll tell you who it wasn't.....OK take a guess...

His veiled attempt to circumvent the idea that even Marty entertains by mentioning that the use of a reamed bearing will work brings this to the fore:

You guys tell me which method sounds more realistic here....using a jig to assemble the main shaft or taking the extra effort to fit the main shaft into a case, lock it down and then remove and add/remove one of those different width spacers I mentioned above.

Lastly, he wraps himself in his "mechanic" spotlight while clinging to Marty at the end and insults MY contributions, information, measurements, etc. like they were nothing at all....

What a friggin' loser....when given FACTS in his face, he still ignores them and ends his post with an insult....to which I am adding my insult to him as a quid pro quo. When a perfectly possible method of fitting the main shaft assembly is proffered, which our jeep mechanic Marty seems readily to entertain, he does NOT come back with an alternative any faster than the way we do it today which would be a laughable waste of time on an assembly line. I can hear ol' Barney Roos/Henry Ford say, "Can't you engineers come up with a jig or something to simplify and speed up this fitting process!"

Anyone who does not kowtow to his Almighty posts is an enemy, to be scorned, ignored and derided....(that would be Joel and myself again).

I'd trade one artificer for a Luc or a Tom any day of the week....if for no other reason than they are helpful, but also because they don't insult you and spend time telling you how great they are and how stupid you are.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:45 pm
by dinof
Not to start any trouble here, but for a newcomer looking at all this, it might scare away anyone that might have the mechanical ability to do a jeep transmission into thinking that it's way more difficult than it really is. I hate the fact that If your not a "mechanic" you don't know what you are doing. Well BU_LLSH_T to that. I can say more but this site has enough loud mouth "Experts" already.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:51 pm
by Joe Gopan
I agree, this site is supposed to be a forum for sharing Jeep knowedge and not bashing and spreading hatred. Jeeps are simple little machines and what is more fun than helping those new to Jeep to create a running example without the baggage.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:56 pm
by donk_316
On the bright side... the issue was fixed and my trans shifts like butter.

No matter what infighting or bickering there is, I wouldn’t have built my own transfercase and transmission without the help on this board.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:12 pm
by Bill H.
Hey boys and girls! Can we please play nice.

You all have a great deal to offer the site and hobby. Let’s not detract please.

There is your warning fellas. ;)

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:26 am
by Wolfman
It would be interesting to see a movie of a T-84 or T-90 assembly line. Would have to be an old movie of " How they did it."
This was mass production. The goal would be, get as many functioning units off the line, as quickly as possible. Maybe a quota to achieve, that matched how many jeeps were to be built in a given time. ??
There was mention of a jig. Makes sense. As well as a dumby main shaft bearing. Makes sense also, in a factory setting.
I would think, sub assemblies would be put together, using a jig and bearing fixture, then installed into the case. Not spend a lot of time making adjustments on final assembly.
I had and took the opportunity to go through a Caterpillar engine plant.
There was a main assembly line with side assembly lines.
Empty engine blocks, ready for build, were set on and moved down a main line, with side lines that were building sub assemblies. Crankshaft, piston and rod assemblies. Cylinder heads, Etc.
As the block moved down the main line, the finished sub assemblies were coming off the side lines and being installed to the block.
One thing that caught my eye, an internal cone shaped fixture that set on the head surface of the block, to install the piston and rod. Just put the piston assembly into the top and the rings were compressed on the way down and slipped easily into the cylinder. A person on the other side installed the bearings and rod cap and the block went on to the next station. Really slick !
Very smooth and did not take all that long for the completed engine to come off the "finished" end of the main line.
I would imagine something like this on a transmission line.
Don't know of anyone left to ask exactly how it was done.
Out here, one on one, we are on our own.

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:32 am
by Bill H.
And imagine how fast each unit was built! Literally a matter of minutes and all together. Then think of how long it would take any one of us to build one! :lol:

Re: Transmission new and something ain’t right...

Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:36 am
by Wolfman
:D You got that right !!
Especially when a lot of us have never done this before !!