Cast Iron Warford Aux Transmission 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 2016: Cast Iron Warford Aux Transmission Questions
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Fuller on Friday, January 01, 2016 - 06:12 pm:

I picked up these two cast iron case Warford transmissions with a bunch of other T parts and I'm hoping to find out more about them.

They are a little different. One is marked 920-1 and the other is marked 920-2. The -2 has a universal joint and from doing a little research I think they are both 3 speeds.

Is there much difference between the two? Are they TT transmissions? Is one more desirable than the other?





















Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Friday, January 01, 2016 - 07:57 pm:

Both transmissions look very complete. The cast iron versions are generally thought of as being for the TT trucks, but that is not true they will work just fine in cars. The gear ratios in the cast iron and aluminum versions are different. Both of the ones you have should have a u-joint at the input and if I remember correctly it is a standard model t u-joint. As for the differences between the two, I would guess one is early and one is late. I don't know if there is a difference in gear ratios between the two you have, if not the more desirable one is the one in better condition.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 02:19 am:

I think, but by no means positive, the Warford u-joint is similar to, but different than a T joint. As I remember, the part of the joint that fits the Warford is shorter and has a larger ID. I'm sure someone will chime in here to set the record straight. By the way, I think I have one of those crossmembers if anyone needs one. Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By keith g barrier Savannah Tn. on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 10:27 am:

It is the same u-joint and pins to the input shaft. KGB


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 11:04 am:

David,

I think the u-joint you're thinking of is the special one used on the front of a Muncie. I'm certain it's used on a Muncie but have never heard that it's used on a Warford. Of course I could be wrong about the Warford application.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 02:09 pm:

Henry, you're probably right. Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Eagle Ida Fls on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 02:21 pm:

I use the standard Ford u-joint on both ends. Even with all the discussions and information posted here I found this post from 5 1/2 years ago amusing. We still don't know all the answers.

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/118802/151109.html?1279200807

Rich


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Fuller on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 03:10 pm:

Richard, that is pretty funny.

I did a bunch of searching and came up with a lot of different information, some conflicting.

So does anyone know if there is a big difference between the 920-1 and 920-2?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Eagle Ida Fls on Saturday, January 02, 2016 - 04:31 pm:

I have used both -1 and -2 Warfords. I had suspected they might be different ratios from the way the cars drove but never counted the teeth. I had thought that was discussed here but didn't search enough to find any mention. I enjoyed seeing you pictures and that those are so complete.

Rich


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 03:58 am:

Nobody has mentioned it, but I believe that the plate on the one side of either of these Warfords indicates that they are designed basically for trucks and will accept a PTO which will enable the powering of a pump or some other sort of accessory.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 04:06 am:

Ed Fuller - I should probably add that altho' I think the two transmissions are for "TT"s for the reason I mentioned, I believe that they are also usable on Model T cars. Not sure of this however, so hopefully, somebody that knows Warlords better than me will chime in. I would think that these iron housing Warfords are more suited to TT's and the aluminum housing ones more for Model T cars. Anybody,....???


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 04:08 am:

Ooops,......that would be Warfords, NOT Warlords, but then again,.....well,....never mind,.....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Stroud on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 05:53 am:

Harold, I don't have any experience with these Warford transmissions, but the PTO port bolt pattern looks just like the six bolt pattern that is still used, at least as far as I know, on many modern transmissions. The PTO will bolt up to the transmission, but there are many different combinations of the drive gears. As long as the gears match up, the PTO will work. Dave


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erick Keenan - Vineland NJ 08360 on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 07:10 am:

Here are some pictures of a Warford PTO. I see that the -1 and -2 have different top, one with a removable cover plate -1 and one with out -2. I also have seen some Warfords that are for model AA but they have a splined input bore and not the square one like the model T or TT.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 11:22 am:

Erick
Interesting specimen of a Warford PTO..there have been threads asking about them, but never any responses.
What are you going to do with it, run off of it?

warford pto
Warford


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Harold Schwendeman - Sumner,WA on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 01:00 pm:

I feel like I have sort of "derailed" Ed Fuller's thread here. I merely pointed out that with my limited knowledge of Warford transmissions, I thought his two transmissions were mainly TT auxiliary transmissions because the side plate on each appears to cover the mounting location for a PTO, but I also thought (and still do) that even tho' they're basically designed for use on TT's, they could also be used on Model T cars. I do know that there is an aluminum case Warford that might be more for the Model T car, because it is lighter.

My point is, I really have a very limited knowledge of Warford transmissions, and I was hoping that someone MORE knowledgable about Warfords would correct me if necessary so I don't "mis-lead" Ed (and me) and to also provide much better Warford information than I can. So,......anybody,.......???

Oh,....and also, both of Ed's Warfords pictured have a crossmember attached which I believe is necessary to provide the extra support needed, because without the additional cross member, the iron Warford puts a lot of strain on the entire power plant and rear motor mounts. Also, I believe, the added weight of the Warford, hanging way back on the rear of the already "not-too-rigid" power plant without that extra cross member, could lead to a broken crankshaft. Again,.....more info needed by those that know! Again,.....anybody???

Okay,.....I'll shut up now,.......harold


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 01:58 pm:

After thinking about this more I believe the difference between 920-1 and 920-2 is that one was made at Plant 1 and the other was made at Plant 2. Look at the info cast above the pto cover, one says PLANT NO1 the other PLANT NO2. With that said, I also believe that one is early and the other is later production based on the shift towers. There should be a serial number stamped into area directly above the pto cover and there should also be a serial number stamped into the shift tower. If you look at the patent dates, there is a patent date of 1913 cast into the side which is well before the introduction of the TT. Looking at ads from the period the cast iron version was used in cars. The crossmember is needed because the input of the cast iron version is designed to flex at the fourth main(just like the driveshaft and torque tube). Without the crossmember the rear of the trans would just hang down when installed(if power is applied to the input there is nothing stopping the whole transmission from rotating).

Ed,
Would you mind posting the serial numbers of the two transmissions, and also the gear ratios(or number of teeth on the gears)?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erick Keenan - Vineland NJ 08360 on Sunday, January 03, 2016 - 03:44 pm:

Hi John,
I have it on my 25 TT now but it is not running any thing.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Fuller on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 07:23 pm:

I finally was able to get back out to my barn to take a better look at the Warfords.

The -1 and -2 both say "Plant No.2" on the case. The gear ratios appear to be the same and the S/N's are about 23,000 numbers apart. Both have square input and output shafts, not splined.

Erick, I see you are from Vineland, I am only about 30 minutes away from you.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:02 pm:

Maybe the -1 and -2 are mold numbers?
Ed,
Do you recall if the lower serial number is the one without the inspection cover on the shift tower?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:10 pm:

Also, on ebay there is an ad from 1924 discussing making your one ton truck a two ton truck by using an aluminum case warford.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1924-Ford-Model-T-2-Ton-Truck-Warford-Transmission-Broch ure-wt8336-/350959563163?hash=item51b6d1f19b:g:avUAAOxygPtStI03


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erick Keenan - Vineland NJ 08360 on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:24 pm:

Hi Ed,
You are close if you ever are out this way stop in. Are you in the local T club? Did you get the "U" clamps and bolts that hold the tans to the frame? If you did not and need a picture tell me and I will post one.
Erick


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Fuller on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:26 pm:

The -2 transmission has the higher S/N and has the inspection cover on the shift tower.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:33 pm:

Thanks Ed


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed Fuller on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 08:35 pm:

Erick,

I stumbled upon pics of the clamps and bolts for the cross member posted on the forum a while ago when I was searching for information on Warfords. Unfortunately, I do not have them. They look easy enough to make though.

Thanks for the invite, I my have to take you up on it! I do not belong to any local T chapters.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 09:51 pm:

Erick,
Perhaps this is a photo you mentioned. Although this looks real, I have never seen the clamp/U bolt installed with the bracket/cross-member on a TT.
bracket


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Herb Iffrig on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 10:19 pm:



Just a couple of photos I have.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Gregush Portland Oregon on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 10:24 pm:

While I can't add anything on the differences between the two I will add, the TT frame is deeper then the car. The cam on the cross shaft sits taller to line up with the lever for the clutch so I would think that with the cross brace mounted in the car frame things might not line up. With a truck (TT) cross brace installed in a car it might want to sit in line or under the bottom lip of the frame. You might need to add spacers between the transmission and cross bract to use in a car.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tom Palmisano on Wednesday, January 06, 2016 - 11:10 pm:

John,
There is a vintage warford ad on ebay that shows the clamp and u-bolt in blueprint form.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1920-Ford-Model-T-Truck-Warford-PTO-Transmission-Mailer- Brochure-wu2013-/371062867240?hash=item5665120528:g:plQAAOxywFhTc85S


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John McGinnis in San Jose area, CA. on Thursday, January 07, 2016 - 08:58 am:

OOps...that message addressed to Erick was meant for Ed Fuller.
Tom Palmisano...yes, the print shows the clamp, but still never seen one on a living TT.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry Davis Houston TX on Thursday, January 07, 2016 - 09:25 am:

I have 3 Warfords. 2 are the Aluminum repo's which while being somewhat noisy in OD work quite well. The third is a cast iron original UD. It's probably designed for trucks but when coupled with a 3/1 rear end works very good in cars, or at least that's my experience in over 30 years of using it my 26 touring. I do recommend using a support truss of some sort as it's quite heavy and would put an undue stress on the pan if all of that weight were not relived is some fashion. Jerry.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Thursday, January 07, 2016 - 09:49 am:

Here's a screenshot of the drawing in the ebay auction (that'll disappear in a few months)

O


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration