Warford Gearbox mounting questions

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Warford Gearbox mounting questions
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Chris Barker, Somerset, England on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 04:36 am:

I am trying to find out which Warford gearboxes had, or have, a universal joint at the front end. I know they all have one at the drive-shaft coupling.
The old documents I have seen, including those shown in 1983 and 1985 Vintage Ford articles (18-3-31 and 20-2-33), all suggest that the 3-speed Warfords (iron, aluminium or iron again) all had 2 U/Js, and the rear of the box was supported on a rigid cross-member.
(The 2-speed Warford 'Tee' was bolted directly to the Ford transmission and had a cross-member mounted via coil springs.)
But I believe I have also seen 3-speed Warfords bolted directly to the Ford transmission.
Here is one example:
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/80257/84916.html?1237266192
This one has NO rear support!!*
Is this the modern version (such as the one in the ad in the recent VF 47-5-62), or did Warford offer this type in the 1920s?

*Texas T Parts' instructions make no mention of a rear support either.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Neil Kaminar on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 07:27 am:

I can only report on the modern 3 speed Warford. Under, direct, over. No universal joint in the front and no extra support. I really like this trans. Shifts smooth and has a real neutral for starting and towing. You can put it into any gear while moving, so it is safe. I like it better than the Ruckstell.

Neil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Zibell on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 10:50 am:

Neil,

A nicely made support is now commercially available. http://www.snydersantiqueauto.com/5424 I installed one on mine just to support the weight a little better. It may not actually be necessary, but it gives me peace of mine that it has that support.

Chris, sorry I can't answer your question either as I too only know the modern Warford.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 11:48 am:

My vintage Chicago Mark E does have a front U joint but heard of other ones that do not have that joint.
A support was fabricated cutting the center from the cross support using 1 1/2 inch square tube.
Problem with vintage type Warford's is no syncros so if you get them out of gear while moveing its no brakes unless you can get them back in gear. I have disc brakes.
The new Warford's use motorcycle type dogs on the syncro's so the full use of the gear box is useable, just pull it into gear. Its much safer.
With the testing done on the pan hinge a pre 26 engine is going to bounce the fourth main, cross member or not.
99 percent of my driving is through the gear box using only the stock Ford ratio. Some times on very steep hills up or down low is used. Over drive is almost never used to hard to shift without grinding the gears and to much engine lugging.
My personal opinion is pre 26 type engine Ruxtell is best 26 27 take your choice.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Walt Berdan, Bellevue, WA on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 12:21 pm:

I've seen 8 or 10 (OK that's not all that many) original Warfords with a mix of 2 and 3 speeds. None of them used a front U joint. My Chicago is the same way, no front U joint.

It took some getting used to and I still have the occasional ugly shift when downshifting but I find that I use all three speeds on the Chicago. Underdrive the least (although it works from a stop on level ground in Ford direct), direct for around town and overdrive is great for going down the road at 40 or above. I've run standard rear gears but prefer 4 to 1. Friends who run the Warfords shift them on the fly as well and upshifts seem smoother than downshifting.

Paul is spot on that wheel brakes are critical with any T that has a true neutral.

Walt


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 03:56 pm:

Only the cast iron case 3 speed Warfords had a U joint at both ends. They require a support at the rear. The others do not, but the engine would benefit from using one.
Erik


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 05:25 pm:

Interesting Eric I did not know that my mark E is an iron over and under.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Nathan Bright on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 08:51 pm:

i dont think the aluminum ones need support. the cast iron ones are muchhhh heavier.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 - 09:58 pm:

There are those who don't think an aluminum-cased Warford needs any extra support. But there are also those who think that the weight of the transmission itself is quite a load on the Model T's fragile crankshaft, even to the point of bending the shaft so that the center main bearing wears at the top, not the bottom. It is true that the aluminum-cased Warford weighs much less than the cast iron one, but it still is extra weight, and it's even farther back than the transmission, which gives it much more leverage in the crank-bending train of thought. I always add an extra crossmember at the rear of the Warford to give it some support. Do whatever makes you feel good about your application, which is what I do.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - 10:39 am:

On a pre 26 style engine stick a magnetic dial on the top of the hogs head measuring to the engine block and pull the emergency brake lever. You will likely see 20 thou or more movement.

T frames are so flexible stepping on the running board or moving in the car seat moves the fourth main.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - 12:10 pm:

The aluminum ones were first, then Warfords were made later of cast iron with a U-joint in front and with a mount.
Some cast iron Warfords have been modified to eliminate the front U-joint, it puts the shifter further forward.
There were also Warfords that were only direct and over and there were Warfords that were direct and under. Both aluminum and cast iron 3 speed Warfords had the same gear ratios.
The two-speed Warfords are very rare.
Warfords were first made with trucks (TT) in mind.
Although the TT trucks badly needed an overdrive the cars also need an underdrive, like the Ruckstells are. so they were sold in great numbers to owners of cars and trucks.
I have always felt the aluminum one without a mount was a problem, or at least controversial in 'those days' and the Warner Gear people decided to make one with a good mount and a U-joint in front so nay-sayers couldn't complain about the weight causing problems to the rear of the engine.
I used an aluminum Warford for several years with no problems and no mount, but I never liked the idea of it just hanging back there without extra support.
They were all made by Warner Gear, therefore called War for Warner and Ford because that's what they fit. WARford.
In 'those days' some folks referred to all auxilary transmissions as 'hand shift'.
My dad always said all the rural mail carriers had model T fords with hand shift to get through the mud better without holding the clutch pedal down hard for long periods of time.
He thought under drive on the handshift with the Ford in high pedal was just right for muddy roads.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Aaron Griffey, Hayward Ca. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - 12:28 pm:

As Paul says, overdrive is not of much use in normal around town and back road driving, but I found with a 4:1 rear end the overdrive gear is great for any out-of town driving, but then going up hills is too much for a stock engine and a 5 passenger body, even with a 4:1. Then if you come out of overdrive and go into direct you have plenty of power but have to race the engine to keep ahead of stock geared Ts. This is especially true with the old original Warfords.
It is hard to beat the stock gear ratio that Ford put in them.
The old Warfords were much faster in overdrive than the new repro Warfords.
There was a lot of discussion on this site when the new Warfords were being planned.
The old Warfords had such a big jump from direct to overdrive because they were meant mostly for one ton trucks that only went 17 MPH in high pedal. They neede the big overdrive for running empty longdistances on good roads. The later trucks had a faster gear ratio that let them go (I think) 25 MPH, but still needed an overdrive.
The Lane Warford is without doubt much more usefull in a car than the originals were.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 12:26 pm:

I have two Chicago Mark E transmissions and neither one of them have a front u-joint. I wouldn't use any auxiliary trans. without supporting on the rear. JMHO. Dave Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 12:49 pm:

Available in the day, support for accessory transmissions.



One owner's method for supporting the new KC Warford.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 01:28 pm:

You can pick up the weight even lift above the fourth mains contact point with the transmission main shaft, but you can't stop frame flex or pan hinge bend. 26 27 style blocks are many times better then those with out two bolts holding the top of the hogs head to the engine block


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Neil Kaminar on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 03:21 pm:

Paul has an excellent point. Why bolt the end of the Warford to a frame that is designed to flex. Granted, the heavy cast iron units needed additional support. The universal joint in front and a support IMO is a good idea. I see the support for the aluminum Warford has a rubber part to take up some flexing.

Neil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 03:59 pm:

Neil - I have no experience in this area, however, I would think that "frame flex" is why the "rubber part" you speak of, or perhaps springs, or perhaps a combination of the two would be a good solution. Anything to just add a bit of flexible support, or "lift" to the rear end of the Warford.

Just "theoretical" on my part, however, as I get older, I notice more and more that many of my "theories" are not so good in practice!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 06:54 pm:

Neil -- I think most Model T'ers agree that you wouldn't want to bolt the rear end of a Warford to the frame, for the reason you suggested. It seems to me though, that even an aluminum-cased Warford has a bit of heft to it, and hanging that weight on the end of the T's transmission isn't a good idea. I always make a crossmember to support the end of the warford, but it's not bolted to it. I use a motor mount rubber donut on the crossmember, which is snugged up to the bottom of the Warford near the rear end of it for support. I don't have any proof that it works, but I haven't had any failures with this setup, and I sleep better at night because of it. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Paul Allen Vitko on Friday, November 23, 2012 - 07:21 pm:

Harold, Mike,
Think you both are right. I did a bunch of testing on fourth main movement, my end result was its a joke on pre 26 engine design. Les Shuberts flex main shaft is the only way I can see to at least help the issue, it works in any direction to about 60 thou. Smart engineer, I have one of his shafts!


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration