How Noisey is Your Transmission?

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: How Noisey is Your Transmission?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Noonan - Norton, MA. on Thursday, March 17, 2016 - 11:07 pm:

After rebuilding my trans this winter, it seems to be a little louder in neutral than i remember it to be. I replaced the triple gears because the bushings were shot and reverse sounded like it was about to grenade when depressed! I also replaced the driven gear and the reverse drum but kept the low and brake drums because they checked out OK, and the gears looked fine. I know that mismatching gears will often lead to a noisy transmission, i have run it at least 50 miles with no problems, nothing in the oil, and nothing on my filter magnet. Should i be concerned, or is this something that will hopefully quiet with time and wear?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Erik Barrett in Auburn Ca. on Thursday, March 17, 2016 - 11:44 pm:

Keep calm and drive on. Mismatched gears will howl but give good service. As long as all the bushings in the transmission have proper clearance and your drums are not cracked, your model T will do what it does just fine. It may get quieter with mileage, maybe not.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Noonan - Norton, MA. on Thursday, March 17, 2016 - 11:54 pm:

Thanks Erik for your input, i appreciate it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Noonan - Norton, MA. on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 12:13 am:

Seems you can't change your spelling mistakes on the thread title,...pretend i was speaking partly French..:-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 07:14 am:

I agree with Erik, it is probably fine. They tend to be really noisy with a set of unknown gears. Worn out transmissions are often very quiet!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 07:49 am:

The biggest risk for failure in a newly refurbished transmission is the triple gears scoring on the pins due to too small clearances. Ford recommended 0.002" "running fit" but when modern restorers use that number there are lots of failures for some reason that hadn't been fully explained even though the topic has been debated to death on the forum.

All we know and can agree on is that everything will probably be OK if a clearance of 0.004" is used instead.
It's important to also make sure the flange of the triple gear bushings protrudes the correct amount above the gear surface, otherwise you'll eventually get a terrible noise from the gears grinding the flywheel.

I put mine together from used mismatched parts with large plays and got it reasonably quiet in neutral, some pleasant noise in low and a rather noisy reverse. That's OK, that'll warn anybody behind when I'm backing up :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By G.R.Cheshire on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 09:12 am:

When I got my first "T" reverse sounded like it was coming apart when actuated after 6 months it just had a little whine. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 09:20 am:

There are several different types of triple gears. Be sure that the ones you use are the same type and equal weight.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Perry Goble on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 11:19 am:

This reminds me of what Henry Ford once said , ( The jokes about my car sure helped to popularize it . I hope they never end. ) This is the cartoon I remembered, A man and his wife are driving down the road , smoke is coming out of the T every were . The husband says And for the millionth time I'm saying I know you smell smoke ...There is smoke! In fun I say I know you hear a noise there is a noise .


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Philip Berg on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 12:32 pm:

John,

My t is like yours, freshly rebuilt by myself using new and used parts. In neutral I have no noise at all but when I step on lo or reverse there is a whine, oil is clean and everything works as it should. Not to worried about it.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 12:38 pm:

I dunno if my planetary transmission makes any noise or not. Can't hear anything over the Muncie noise. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mark Strange - Hillsboro, MO on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 12:46 pm:

I use the pitch of the whine in my transmission as an indicator of my speed. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Menzies on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 02:01 pm:

This is a small thing but when new bushings are installed they usually need honing to fit. Most guys hone with a drill free hand until it fits this may or may not be ok. To assure a true aligned hone should be in a jig and not free hand.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Tim Lloid on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 02:07 pm:

One of mine with the new rebuilt tranny is very loud but i have heard others that are louder!! Mine makes the most noise in low gear. Reverse and high gear are much quieter. But it takes gear very solid and doesnt slip. I assume they all have some noise. I have model A s and we all know they are not quiet either.My 30 coupe has a nos tranny with 500 miles and its not quiet. Tim


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 09:32 pm:

Roger, You are 100% correct. You need 0.004 In clearance. I have been called every name under the sun by members on this forum for saying that but they are all fools. Ford did not say 0.002 In clearance. He said 0.002 running clearance. This is the only place he uses this term for clearance. But 0.002 In running clearance means 0.002 In on all sides of the shaft with the shaft running on center. That means 0.004 in clearance. I can't tell you how many people have had their gears seize on the shafts when using 0,002 in clearance.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Noonan - Norton, MA. on Friday, March 18, 2016 - 09:51 pm:

Glen i believe you are correct, maybe the terminology you described confused some engine builders back in the day. My engine was rebuilt by a very reputable guy back about 30 years ago and then got very little use till i bought it a few years ago, and the triple gear bushings were completely seized to the pins. Maybe that's why it was put away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BglVMweyqz4&feature=youtu.be


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Saturday, March 19, 2016 - 11:00 am:

The real "fool" is the one that is presented proof and ignores it. Glen is no machinist. Set the clearance to .004" but not for the reason he states--It's because of the modern bearing material has a higher coefficient of expansion and is sub-standard to that used in the original Ford bushings.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Menzies on Saturday, March 19, 2016 - 11:57 am:

I don't understand what you mean by a higher coefficient of expansion. Brass is an alloy made up of 90% copper mixed with zinc, tin, antimony and phosphorus. Brass has been made this way for hundreds of years. Copper is the main component and its expansion rate has been the same for at least 1000 years. The other metal ingredients effect the wear ability and in some cases steel shafts will fail before the brass bushing. Hardness of brass and bronze may be also achieved by specified cooling methods, the longer a brass component is cooled the harder it will get. In the early days metal smiths could harden bronze to be equal to or harder than steel.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Saturday, March 19, 2016 - 12:07 pm:

The proof is in the fact that with .004" clearance the bushings will not seize on the the shaft,but with less they might seize. We don't need to call others "fools". Their foolishness will be self evident if their methods fail!
norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Saturday, March 19, 2016 - 12:51 pm:

They are fools because they will not listen to experience and just want to argue. The modern bushings are made with the same material Ford used so coefficient of expansion is not a factor. I do listen to the presented proof and I am a machinist. I make hundreds of parts for the Model T Ford and none of them fail. The presented proof is that any Triple Gear bushing set to 0.002 in clearance will eventually seize on the pin. So why argue with the presented proof.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Sunday, March 20, 2016 - 07:28 pm:

That's what I ask of you. Why argue with presented proof? I agreed (read above) that the clearance should be greater than .002". I disagree with your reason for it. You keep saying "Running Fit" means to double the specification. It does not mean that at all.

http://www.mtfca.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=411944&post=659142#POST659142


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Sunday, March 20, 2016 - 07:45 pm:

Ken, This is the only place Ford used the term Running Fit. It obviously doesn't mean clearance.
So what do you think it means, you never say, you only disagree. We have ample proof that 0.002 clearance is not enough. So what did Ford mean? You tell me? And don't just give me some chart. We're talking about what Ford said and what he meant. Maybe we'll have to dig him up!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Sunday, March 20, 2016 - 08:16 pm:

I've said it multiple times. Running Fit is a Class of Fit. A class of fit allows for a tolerance on a specification. Ford used the term to specify that the fit is other than a Precision fit, which he expected as the norm. That's all. Don't put more into it than it is. Set them to whatever and however it works for you and be done with it.

I have always maintained that the .002" is too tight for modern bushings. I have just disagreed with your definition of running fit. I don't know why it always gets translated into a disagreement over the actual clearance suggested. Perhaps too many here are reading comprehension challenged. :-)

And I won't even go into David's explanation of "brass" other than to say there's several hundred alloys of copper each with different physical characteristics. None of which can be heat-treated, I might add.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Sunday, March 20, 2016 - 08:50 pm:

I would question whether there were "standard fits" when Ford was designing his transmission sometime before 1908. Ford must not have meant 0.002" diametral clearance or he would have had the same problems we have using it now. The reamer manufacturers of the time certainly had different information.

There are copper alloys which can be "heat treated" such as beryllium copper alloys that are precipitation hardened. Many stainless steel superalloys are precipitation hardened, the more common one is 17-4 PH.

Glen posted a topic that we should all be more civil with one another. I think it's time to quit arguing about the definition of running fit and recognize when you rebuild a Model T transmission that a a shade too much clearance is much better than a shade too little clearance. It's not impossible that the 0.002 running fit did not come from Ford but from a draftsman's error. In any case we know 0.004 diametral clearance is needed to make them work. The exact origin of that running fit spec or it's meaning as Glen suggested we will never know.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Sunday, March 20, 2016 - 10:44 pm:

It is obvious that Running Fit is a class of fit. But what does that mean? Ford's specification was 0.002 in Running Fit but he did not put a tolerance on it. So much for that. But you still have not told us what the specification should be. That is what is important to the reader. I find it interesting that 0.002 in does not work and 0.004 in. does work which is exactly what my definition of running fit is based on what Ford said. So don't argue with me, argue with Ford. I believe I am right. But I don't care what you call it but I do know what works and that is all that is important. So lets stop arguing over words.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 11:47 am:

Henry Ford is dead and we cannot ask him what "running fit" means. However I have been thinking about things. With the planetary gear setup, it is very likely that one of the pins could be just a bit out of alignment. This would put a bind on one of the gears as the transmission rotates. If this is the meaning, then "running fit" would mean that no matter what position the center (sun)gear in relationship to the planetary gears, there would always be at least .002" clearance on the side toward the sun gear.

Anyway, that's my thought. Impossible to verify with Mr. Ford.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 12:12 pm:

I have been thinking things over. Mr. Ford is no longer with us, so we cannot ask him what he meant by "running fit". But with the planetary gears running on pins through the flywheel, it is entirely possible that one of the pins could be slightly off center. If so, there would be less clearance on the gear running on that particular pin than on the others. That could cause a bind on one of the gears if the pin were slightly closer to the center (sun) gear than the others. So the solution would be .002" clearance on on the side of the gear toward the center gear. Or, .002" clearance while the transmission is running. So a complete rotation of the planetary gear would have a minimum of .002" in any position of the gears.

Anyway, my thoughts.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Dewey, N. California on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 12:51 pm:

Back when I ran a restoration shop I had a Model T fire chief's car come in the shop because the transmission had seized--there was no neutral! I found other problems with the car too, like wheels with spokes so loose they would "clock" about 12 degrees each way! However, back to the engine; all rebuilt, but the gears were all seized in the transmission. Was a real pain to take apart, but once apart the only problem was seized bushings. I reamed them out (with a Sunnen hone)to about .0035 on each one, and no more problems. Today I would probably go to .004, just to be safe!
No matter why you think it doesn't work, the important part is IT DOESN'T WORK with too little clearance; so let us at least agree on that, OK?
Glenn, I don't know why you seem to get picked on when this subject comes up, but anyone who thinks you are not a machinist obviously has never met you! Glenn has done a lot for the Model T hobby for which we should all be thankful.
I found out the secret for-sure way to make a small fortune in the Model T business; start with a large fortune--it will become small very quickly!
:-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 02:08 pm:

Norman, Ford would have never accepted a part not being machined properly so I doubt that he would ever address an offset pin. We can only guess at what Ford meant about 0.002 In running fit, but this is the only place he used that term. A few paragraphs down he said that if the bushing had more than 0.005 clearance it should be replaced. Two total different references. It would have certainly simplified things if he just said give the bushings 0.004 clearance. Mr Kopsky has always disagreed with my definition of running fit and that is his right. But I believe he is wrong. There is no published definition of running fit I have found, only charts showing recommended clearance for a particular shaft size. These charts never address material used so they are worthless. Most people agree with me that you need 0.004 In clearance for the triple gear bushings and that agrees perfectly with my definition of running fit. So go figure. David, Thank you for the support. Your right, getting picked on doesn't make you want to contribute.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 03:37 pm:

The drawings specify a .001" to .0015" clearance. I assume, because Ford was aware that a higher clearance was needed, he specified in the repair manual to make the clearance .002". The "running fit" class was used to increase the tolerance allowed on the fit. That's all fit classes do. It doesn't mean to double the clearance. Rather than having a Precision Fit as per the drawing, the fit was changed to Running Fit to allow the .002" clearance.

The proof has/is documented in the drawings and several threads in the forum as well as several machinist handbooks. As long as you keep thinking you're are right, I'll keep saying you're wrong. The facts don't support your belief.

But you're right about needing ~.004" clearance and as I said every time before, that's not in debate here. It never was. You keep calling everyone a fool because they disagree with you on the clearance needed. As far as I can tell, no one is disagreeing with you on that fact. You are arguing with yourself and have a serious problem in that regard.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 08:41 pm:

Ken, I have all of the drawings for the pins and bushings as I am sure you do. The clearance you are referring to is a pre finish clearance. I'm sure they gave them more clearance at assembly. I have 16 NOS triple gears. Only 6 have bushings installed. None of the bushings have been reamed. They measure 0.673 to 0.678. The pre ream spec is 0.6785-0.6790.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Monday, March 21, 2016 - 09:07 pm:

Sorry, The pre ream spec is 0.6765-0.6770


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - 08:08 pm:

Ken, I have been called many names in previous posts for suggesting you use 0.004 in clearance. Just read the old posts. It's brutal. But thanks for finally agreeing with me on something. Thanks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 03:48 pm:

I think we need to get a new horse, this one has most certainly been beat to death.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting, Clare, Iowa on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 09:58 pm:

Well Ted, don't ride your Nag up this canyon any more.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Glen Chaffin on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 11:34 pm:

Good one Herman


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Noonan - Norton, MA. on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 - 11:49 pm:

Well, I'm glad this disagreement has sorted itself out and we can all be cordial again. BTW, the more i drive the T the quieter it is becoming..:-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Duey_C on Saturday, March 26, 2016 - 02:13 am:

Dare I say this?/The outsider looking in....
When a thread slides this way (I can handle it myself as I'm very diverse within my own mind AND with my wife's.... ba dump ching...), perhaps we should refer to the
"A Big Thank You to MTFCA Members" recent thread...
You guys have so much life/T experience here and sometimes you are all correct! That's pushing it some days..... ;-)

Oh! My shot/worn out/destroyed '19 engine's transmission is quiet in noodle (neutral), low is silent, reverse growls a little. Did I mention a tooth on the sun gear is missing? True.

Still a very interesting thread! :-)
Hehe! Keep calm and T on......


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John Semprez-Templeton, CA on Saturday, March 26, 2016 - 02:01 pm:

I really enjoyed this thread (except the bruised feelings).

It took me back to a time in the late '50's when my dad was talking to a neighbor... an aero engineering professor at a local university who asked my dad, in a rather condescending way, what he did at the Douglas Aircraft plant where he worked. "Oh, my dad replied, We build airplanes the experts tell us can't fly". "The airplanes don't know that, so we just keep building them".


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Garnet on Saturday, March 26, 2016 - 09:37 pm:

Duey, do you know where the tooth went? That little piece can cause you a lot of trouble if it's still in there.

Regards,
Garnet


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Duey_C on Saturday, March 26, 2016 - 10:55 pm:

Good question Garnet. I still suspect after all these years that I broke it off when forcing that transmission to "let go" of the high speed clutch that was stuck tight but I cannot verify it.
That was in the mid '90's. No patience and no forum to guide.
My poor little Ford's engine has been run hard, put away wet, slumbered too long and back again. And yet again. I've seen where the missing tooth should be twice. Then and now again.
If I ever find that missing tooth, the story will be told here. :-)
The mag still works even tho the crankshaft does allow some contact betwixt the coil ring and magnet keepers...

Poor little ford and I force it to go yet again this year.
I always tell non T people that a model T is almost un-killable. Also true. They're tough!


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