Warford or no Warford ahead of Ruckstell on TT Fire Truck

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 2015: Warford or no Warford ahead of Ruckstell on TT Fire Truck
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob on Texas Gulf Coast on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 09:52 pm:

Looking for opinions and this seems to be the place to find them. I am putting back together a TT Fire Truck. I have a Warford and have considered installing it in the Fire Truck. The Truck has a high speed rear axle with a Ruckstell. I am not looking for speed because 45+ in an open Fire Truck doesn't interest me. In fact the most common use may be slow parades Part of me thinks putting the Warford in front of a high speed rear end and a Ruckstell might just be a waste and part of me thinks I would have all the options I could ever imagine. So...help me make up my mind. Tell me what you think.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tony Bowker, Ramona, CA on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:05 pm:

If you install a three speed Warford and have a Ruckstell in addition to the two speed Ford transmission, you will have twelve (12) forward speeds. I doubt very much you will use more than a couple.... Really doesn't seem worth the effort, so I would vote no.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:17 pm:

Even the high speed TT rear end gears are slower than a regular T. Having said that, Vulcan logic suggests to me that the Warford is more useful than the Ruckstell and that the Ruckstell is redundant when used with the Warford. It offers only direct and under. The Warford provides the direct and under with the added advantage of an over.

However, if added speed is not a priority then I think I'd not bother with the Warford. You already have direct and under with the Ruckstell. Installing the Warford would necessitate shortening the driveline and tube as well as the radius rods. It's a lot of work just to get an over that you don't seem to want or need.

Just my $0.02 worth.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry Woods, Richmond, Texas on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:19 pm:

I, once, had a 1916 touring with a Warford and a Ruxtell with 3.63 gearing, equaling the 12 forward gears and 6 in reverse. It was a hoot to drive. If I found a tree with just a little bit of angle to the tree trunk and I gently put the front axle against it, I could climb the tree trunk. I only tried it once to a height of about 6 inches above the axle height, as I knew I wasn't getting oil to the front main and I didn't want to damage the engine. It was a fun car.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Justin H. - Western PA on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 10:33 pm:

My personal decision was no. I was in the same predicament with my TT...high speed gear, Ruckstell, and a Warford as options for it. I decided to go with the high speed gear and Ruckstell only. Here are the reasons:
1. My torque tube and radius rods are extremely nice and I couldn't bear cutting them.
2. The Warfords have a reputation of being noisy.
3. There is more of a chance of getting stuck in neutral with a Warford so auxiliary brakes are a must (I have them anyway in the event the Ruckstell finds its way to neutral).
4. My engine is stock so it would have a hard time pushing the truck in Ford high / Warford overdrive in the hills of Pennsylvania.

After I came to the final decision to pass on the Warford I sold it so that I couldn't change my mind again. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerome Hoffman, Hays Kansas on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 11:03 pm:

The really nice thing having both is for parades you can run the engine in high and no low band engaged because of the lower gearing. The Warford has an O.D.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Anthony J. Marino - League City, Texas on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 11:13 pm:

I use low Ruxtell and low Muncie for parades and getting on my trailer. I use low Ruxtell and Muncie reverse to get off the trailer.

I use Ford low pedal, Muncie direct and Ruxtell to start off to ~10 mph then let out the Ford pedal to high. When I get up to speed I go Muncie high (overdrive). I leave it in Ruxtell high almost always and just shift the Muncie up or down. My TT has Bennett auxiliary brakes.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By bob middleton on Sunday, July 12, 2015 - 11:29 pm:

Ruxtle high is direct just gives you an easy get to middle gear in a car it's handy
Truck already has gears I go aux tranny
That being said my TT I'm using Muncie and stock rear high speed gears this give me low gears plus overdrive
Think of it like a 4 speed
Stock t gives you 2nd and 4th
Ruxstel gives you 1st and 3rd
Auxs tranny gives you this plus granny and overdrive


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Burger in Spokane on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 12:50 am:

As you describe your intended usage, I'd vote no. A lot of work
for no advantage in your application.

I am going high speed rear gears/ruckstell and a Lincoln 3-speed,
but I want to cover distances on long road trips, so ... totally different
intent of use.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 05:39 am:

I am currently building a TT orchard truck which will have a Ruckstell and cast iron Warford. I chose the Warford because it has a PTO for driving accessories. There will be enough low gearing to use for chugging through an orchard...or a parade...without using low band.
I have this combination in another TT which I find works fine...and also minimizes driveline vibration.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Killecut on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 06:32 am:

I have this set up in my 20 TT. I like it, makes the truck more versatile and is a real conversation starter.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 11:45 am:

I have a cast iron Warford and Ruckstell in my dump truck. Best setup possible, there is a gear gear combo perfect for every situation. Out of a possible 12, I use 7 from standing start to top speed when fully loaded. Empty, I use 4 or 5. Also, it is perfect for parades because you can creep along without standing on the low pedal. Some people stay away from Warfords because they are scared to shift them on the fly. It does take practice and rear wheel brakes are a must have.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Justin H. - Western PA on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 12:12 pm:

I also have to note that I considered a rear end mounted aux trans with an OD. My concern was the higher RPM's that the drive shaft would be turning with the Warford up front. Even though it would be 12" shorter than stock I still was nervous about vibration in OD. My worries may have been completely in my imagination though.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 12:57 pm:

Dan & Eric - Not to "derail" this thread, but I am interested to know if with each of your respective trucks, you have some support for the weight of the Warford which hangs out a long way from the "dog ears", or stock Ford rear engine mounts,....??? I realize that being TT trucks, you probably have one of the several period type "belly" supports added to the "dog ears", but that is mostly to ease the strain on the "dog ears", and hopefully prevent the "dog ears" breaking, or tearing loose from the pan.

It is my belief that the Warford (or any other aux. transmission) needs support at or near it's rear end where the drive shaft/torque tube attaches. This gets "complicated" to explain (for me anyway) but I also believe this added support for the added weight of the Warford (or aux.) transmission needs to also be a bit "flexible". In other words, if this makes sense, with the added weight of the Warford, and with frame flex, the whole power plant needs a fourth support at the rear, added to Fords stock 3-point power plant flexible support. I feel that this is important even with the "new improved" Model "T" that has the top of the hogshead bolted to back of engine block (one of Ford's "improvements" for the "26-"27 Model T to make the eng/trans power plant more rigid) but especially important on earlier engine/transmission units that tend to flex more between engine and transmission, as the ONLY support in that case is the stamped sheet metal oil pan or crankcase which does flex, even without the added weight of an aux. transmission.

I recently bought a '26 Touring that DOES have an iron Warford in addition to a Ruckstell rear end. I am presently planning on installing some sort of flexible support for the rear end of the Warford. This set-up works okay for now, but I firmly believe that leaving it as is without that rear support is just asking for a broken crankshaft. I will say one thing,....with everything in "low", that Touring Car will sure "crawl" like a tractor! FWIW,.......harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 05:53 pm:

Harold, the iron Warford, when installed correctly, has a u-joint between it and the T trans. Then, it has a support crossmember at the back. This takes a bunch of weight and stress off of the crankcase. I have seen a few of them with the front adapter housing removed and plugged right into the T engine. Bad idea on many levels. Adds major stress the the crankcase and also also the Warford input shaft is too small, resulting in a lot of slop and vibration. This happens because the front and rear of a T u-joint are different sizes. Aluminum Warfords bolt right up to the T but would benefit from extra support also.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Killecut on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 05:55 pm:

Harold, there is a warford cross member for the TT warford. There is one on my truck, and I also found a NOS one.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 08:18 pm:

Regarding the cast iron Warford (6-speed) it is imperative that the front U-joint extension be used along with the rear support bracket. The bracket shown below is for a TT installation and a detail of the clamp plate below the frame. The same bracket can be used on a passenger frame by mounting it under the frame with U-bolts or other means.
crossmember
bracket end


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 08:41 pm:

Dan & John - Hey, I actually got one of those cross members with a bunch of spare parts and stuff from the family of the deceased fellow who put my '26 Touring together. I wondered if that cross member was something he had in mind for the Warford installation, and thanks to you two guys, I'm convinced that he was probably going to do that. Looks like all I have to do is devise some way to clamp that cross member to the frame and devise some sort of spring or rubber mount for the rear of the Warford, huh? Thanks so much for the info and pic, and whenever convenient, a photo or two of what your actual Warford installation actually looks like would be a really big help! Thanks so much you guys,......harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 08:57 pm:

Erik B. - I should have said "thanks" to you too for the information! Not sure if my Warford has the U-joint between it and the Ford transmission, and the car is not right here where I live, but next time I get a chance, I'll slide under there and take a look. Not sure how it should look, but I would think it would be pretty obvious if there is an extension housing containing a U-joint at the input end of the Warford or not,....thanx again,.....harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Monday, July 13, 2015 - 10:26 pm:

An iron Warford will be 15 3/4" total length from flange to flange.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 09:27 am:

Harold,
There is no rubber or spring mount at the mounting of the transmission to the bracket..it is hard mounted with two bolts and any frame motion is taken up by the sliding of the clamping plates at the attachment to the frame.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob Scherzer -- Saginaw, MI on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 10:30 am:

My personal experience involved with Warford and other over/under transmissions has been the need for their slower speed if your truck is to be used in parades. I would rather trailer my trucks to a show or parade since TT's are just too slow given today road speeds and the people traveling on them while on their phones or texting and not what's in front of them.

If you have to come to a complete stop in a parade you do not have to hold your foot in the neutral position or pull the handbrake halfway back but rather you can put the Warford in neutral this allows the engine to run more freely and you can increase the RPM for more cooling during these stops or slowdowns.

Our fire department has a 1924 Ford TT firetruck it also has Warford transmission and we use it as I have just described in parades. Both of my TT trucks have 3 speed auxiliary transmissions in them also the "23"TT Stake has a Jumbo Giant and my "26"TT Stake has a Warford. My still unfinished "21"T firetruck built on a car chassis does not have an auxiliary transmission at this time but I have since picked up an aluminum 3 speed Warford that I plan to put in it for the same reason I mentioned above since firetrucks basically are show or parade vehicles today and not used as daily drivers. Bob.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 12:29 pm:

Thank you John McGinnis!

WOW! This forum and it's members are fantastic! Have wondered since I got the '26 Touring with the Ruckstell & Warford, what I was going to do about more support for the Warford, and it looks like about everything I need to know is here! Thanks again all, and Bob on the Texas Coast, I hope I didn't cause your thread to stray too far off of your topic, and then again, if you install a Warford or some other aux. transmission, it's all probably good information for you too!

Again, thanks all,.....harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 01:48 pm:

Just to add more to this discussion....here are photos of the front ends of both an aluminum and cast iron (without extension) Warford transmissions. Another photo is of a cast iron Warford with the front extension and U-joint (the U-joint is not fully installed)
transmissions
extnsion


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 06:02 pm:

John - Well,....those photos will certainly serve to help me identify exactly how my Warford installation was made, and I certainly appreciate it! Thanks again so much,......harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 06:20 pm:

Bob, if you have all the parts then do it. You will like the overdrive feature of the Warford. If it's a 2 speed Warford then I would say forget it. One thing about a Warford is that if you put in neutral by design or accident your foot brake is useless and your handbrake becomes suddenly very important.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Bob on Texas Gulf Coast on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 09:43 pm:

Just for the record my Warford is a new aluminum KC Warford. Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 - 10:13 pm:

You will love it, no question about it. Its synchronized so you can easily shift it on the go. Make sure your emergency brakes are in good working order, but the chances of getting the KC Warford getting stuck in neutral are about zip. I think it would be dumb to not install it unless you have a car to put it in where you could enjoy it even more. Elmer Layne and his folks did an outstanding job in designing this transmission.


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