There has been some discussion on another thread about me installing my KC Warford trans in my speedster project. Some say it needs support, others say no support. So for this thread that topic has already been covered. But please humor me as to my search for designing my support bracket. The KC Warford requires that the front running board bracket be cut or removed, as it is in the way. I removed my front running board bracket. I made and installed a new cross bar to the top rail of the frame to replace the loss of support from my removed running board brace. You will see it in the attached pics. So what I am planning on is a "spring loaded" support, hanging from the new cross bar. I plan on making a bracket from 3/16 or 1/4 inch plate to bolt to the rear of the transmission at the drive shaft ball location. I show it in the pis as a white paper template/pattern. It will attach to all four of the Warford rear trans bolts To this plate/bracket I will weld a 7/16 bolt, that passes thru a 1/2 inch to 5/8 inch hole, in the new cross bar. I want a somewhat "loose/sloppy fit to the bolt in the hole. The loose fit will allow for twisting. Then I will put a washer, then a spring, another washer, and then a castle nut with cotter key. All of that will stick up above the frame a little less than 2 inches. On my speedster project I can cut a hole in the floor board to create a cavity for the spring to be in. The hole can be made big enough for twisting to cause no problems. Then with a little sheet metal cover under the floor mat, It will not be seen. I show washers in the locations the holes will need to be for the shift tower and support spring. I believe all the parts will give good support and no strain and work well with Fords "three point chassis" design. Now for the technical question I am unsure of. I do not know for sure what the trans weighs as I did not weigh it yet. But for the sake of this discussion, lets just call it 60 pounds. So in theory I have 60 pounds of dead weight hanging on the end of the Ford engine/trans assembly. What I am trying to figure out is how much spring pressure it takes to overcome the 60 pounds of downward force of the Warford. If Im thinking correctly if I put 60 pounds of spring tension pulling up at the front of the Warford where it bolts too the Ford engine that would over come the weight of the Warford as far as the Ford engine is concerned. Now if I was to put the same 60 pounds of spring force pulling up at the shift tower, it would also overcome the weight of the Warford, since it is centered over the weight of the Warford. . My problem is I am applying the upward spring force at the rear of the Warford. So If Im thinking right, due to "leverage" I need to apply less upward spring force to overcome the weight of the Warford. So not having an "engineering staff" like I used to have when I was working. Can anyone tell me how much spring tension I need to apply at that point. Whoooh Im tired after all that typing " Any suggestions yea or ney will be appreciated. I do not always do what is suggested, but I will always listen and be thankful for the input ....
Donnie one easy way to determine your spring pressure without getting technical would be to remove the two lower bolts holding the Warford to the Ford transmission, and loosen the top two bolts. Tighten the spring until you can tell it's starting to lift the Warford. Bam, leave it there or perhaps back off just a wee bit, and tighten everything else back up.
(Message edited by Wreckrod9 on January 14, 2017)
Donnie, if there is any way to fit a piece of angle iron as the cross bar in place of the strapping, I would consider it. The extra depth of the vertical part of the angle iron will make it much more resistant to sagging.
I like it!! To me it looks to add support and also have a little give for the flexable Ford! Bud.
Mark, I was already thinking about doing something about the center strength. I think I will add two flat bar braces in the corners. I do not think they will give any issues as to the "three point chassis". I can also bring them closer to the center if needed. When Im done with the design I will rivet all the parts in place ... Something similar to my feeble attempt at artwork I tried to draw. So far nothing appears like it will be in the way of anything, like exhaust, gas tank sediment bulb, tool and battery boxes, ect....
That should do the trick! The spring mount is a neat idea to provide vertical support without transferring any flexing loads into the transmission case casting.
Seth, " very good idea" I like "old school seat of the pants" fixes and ideas.
Are you running single exhaust or dual exhaust? I can't remember which. Regardless of which, that passenger side brace is smack dab in the way. The 4 valve Rajo makes my exhaust noticeably hotter than stock and I've had to wrap my exhaust pipes and heat shield the floor boards to keep them from burning.
I'd recommend mocking up your exhaust pipe(s) and the brace. With your head if you run a pipe or pipes close to those braces they're gonna get REALLY hot.
Unless you're gonna run your exhaust external to the whole body, then none of this matters.
Donnie, if you drop a second strap down from the sides to just above the white bracket, and fix it in the centre, that will stiffen up your strap and give you the exhaust clearance Seth is looking for.
Hope this helps.
Allan from down under.
Seth, I have the same dual exhaust cast iron manifold you have. I plan on leaving the manifold, and almost immediately making a transition to a 2 inch or 2-1/2 inch single exhaust going to the "Taylor Loudspeaker muffler". It looks like I will have plenty of room for it. I should be below the frame rail by the time it gets to the Warford. I also want to be low enough to be able to just see the "Taylor Loudspeaker" muffler from the side of the car. The main issues are the sloping floorboards. That dual exhaust is just so darn close to them. Im thinking about making metal, sloping floor boards. There are at least a couple different era correct metal floorboards that were accessories back in the day. They were double thickness at the exhaust area and had an asbestos sheet between the layers. I can build them with the modern asbestos substitute in them for heat shielding purposes. That is the game plan anyway....
Donnie, I hate to throw another dimension into your already complex problem, but by balancing the weight with the spring you are only taking the strain off the engine/trans joint while the car is standing still and not running. As soon as you begin moving, especially going over bumps in the road, the inertia of the Warford will add and subtract from the actual weight.
I'm not saying that the spring support is a bad idea, but you might want to think about the bouncing and rebound effects of the spring/mass system. That's probably why modern engine mounts and transmission mounts are rubber rather than metallic springs.
Pretty complicated problem.
A spring loaded KC Warford "support" sounds cool but don't springs push back? That is, they cause bouncing? Bouncing aint cool!
If you must support a KC Warford alone (see comments below) the Mike Walker hard rubber "donut" solution seems to me a better option.
Personally, if I added a KC I'd rather create a support for the rear of the Ford trans (near where it joins with the KC). Such Ford rear trans supports were sold as an accessory back in the day. It's just that supporting the KC without supporting the rear of the Ford trans may create a situation, when say driving on very rough roads, where the KC and Ford trans are doing different things, moving in different ways. Don't forget, the Ford trans is much much heavier than the KC; why support the lighter one?
The fact is though, you will not be taking your speedster through the arid back roads of Utah like Dean Yoder recently did, nor through Africa like I did so in the end it's irrelevant on what support design you decide on because it will never come into play. Donnie you have a speedster, don't add unnecessary weight that offers zero advantage.
Its interesting to say the least to make a arm bolted to the intake side of the block that will go back to the rear of the transmission to hold a dial. I did that on a well used 16. Just stepping on the running board or moving side to side or wiggling in the drivers to passengers side would move the dial about 17 thou each way from a zero start.
I have no idea what bumps or just turning a driven car would do but with a weak frame it cant be good!
Hi Donnie, I was going to post much the same concern as Dick, but he said it so well that I'll only second his comments, and also those of Constantine about a rubber donut-type support.
For my cast-iron support I used a rigid bracket with rubber washers on the bracket-to-transmission bolts which will (I hope) allow a bit of movement when the frame twists and/or flexes.
I would use a ball joint rather than a spring. The spring allows the transmission to flex up and down or right and left effectively making crankshaft stresses increase dramatically. You want to allow flexing of the frame without the engine.
Look at how many crankshafts Jon broke on the O - 2 O adventure a few years ago. I don't know what he was using to support his KC Warford but obviously it was not working.
Take a look at the support supplied by Snyder's. http://www.snydersantiqueauto.com/warford-transmission-support Support is from the bottom using the bottom two holes. Also the mount is behind the drive shaft connection plate so you get a correct fit of the drive shaft. I don't think using the spring mount from the top and the mount plate between the Warford and drive shaft is a good idea.
John, My mount is behind the drive shaft. It may not look like it in the photos but it is basically the same mount as Snyders uses. Im thinking a trans mount is similar to what oil or bands to use and almost there with water pumps. .. Constantine, I never did ask what year your engine was when you made the big trip thru Africa. The transmission "belly bands" that support the Ford transmission are more to protect the crankcase arms (engine supports) than stop the flexing of the pan at the motor/hogshead joint. They help some but not a lot, as to the pan flex. I know that right now all I have is a pan with a hogs head bolted to it. When assembled, I will have the trans shaft and the rear 4th main bearing in place. But right now I can (with very little force) lift up and down on the rear of the trans and visually see the engine/hogshead gap move. I understand the "bounce effect" of the spring that some are concerned with. But I think it is very very minimual. After all, any movement that happens is probably measured in thousands of an inch. But when we are talking about a 4th main that should be set to a few thousands of an inch. any movement at the trans is a lot. The spring (or rubber bushing) is only carrying a "static load" It just "sits there" When hitting a rough bump or rough road bouncing. The downward force should "load up" the spring (or rubber bushing) and then rebound. Due to gravity and things being bolted together, I feel like the rebound is more of a "return to static load position" than a "Pogo effect" I feel like having no transmission brace would create more of a "Pogo effect" than having a spring or rubber bushing. My spring is more than likely going to be a transmission band spring. It is about the stiffness that appears to give a good "spring rate" I could also use a rubber bushing in place of the spring if it seems like that would be a better choice. I have a couple of aftermarket transmission braces from back in the day. Both mount under the transmission in the same fashion as Snyders brace. Both have springs instead of a rubber cushion. One is a factory Chicago transmission brace and the other is unknown. Both of those braces and Snyders brace are all doing the same thing as my brace. Their mount/support is just from the bottom, and mine is from the top. Royce, I like the ball joint idea. Im just trying to decide if it is "too ridged" but it does sound like a good design plan... Thanks for all the input so far ....
To check the downward force at the rear of the Warford why not use a bathroom scale on the floor underneath it?
On my 22 with a heavy iron over and under the weight is supported by a square tube heavy wall cross member with no connection to it. I have to force it slightly back to uncover the drain plug. That's with a 26 type hogs head and a front U joint between the Mark E and the vintage transmission. I don't know if its better being able to move around a little but it has worked well for years.
I have everything made and in mock up. I have settled on using a rubber shock bushing for the support to hang from instead of a spring. The support bracket mounts with all four of the rear transmission bolts. I drilled a 1/2 inch hole in the flat bar cross member that I installed above the transmission. I also drilled a 1/2 inch hole in the support bracket. This gives the 7/16 support hanger bolt a good amount of "slop" (technical term). This bolt just acts as a "hanger" and in no way is a fixed or "hard bolted" item. Due to the "sloppy fit" (another technical term) there is absolutely no side to side or front to rear strain placed on the transmission as the frame flexes. The hanger bolt can only limit downward travel. So no matter how bad the jolt or bump, the trans can only move downward what the rubber will allow. I believe the "set up" or "final adjustment" will be when the engine/trans is installed for the last time. I will then adjust the hanger bolt till there is no up or down movement to the bolt/washer/rubber bushing assembly. Then continue to turn till the cotter key will go in and that is it. I still plan on using a castle nut and cotter key. But, I may use a nylon lock nut for awhile, till I make sure I like the adjustment. I made my flat bar braces from the running board bracket I removed for the transmission clearance. I still have to final rivet the support bars to the frame and do a little clean up and final trimming of corners on the trans bracket, and shorten the hanger bolt a little bit, but I am fairly satisfied with all of it. The last two photos are of the rear flat bar cross member and anti-rattle pad I added to maintain the 21-1/2 center to center of the frame rails. They work very well and do not limit the twisting of the frame in the least bit. . So any comments will be appreciated. yea or ney. Like I said before. I will listen to anything a person has to say. I just do not always listen ... Thanks again for the help with ideas and suggestions.
Wow, sure looks good to me! It will be interesting to see how much if any relative movement occurs during operation, you may hear some clunking if the nut end of that hanger bolt contacts the transmission case.
Nice piece of work.
Mark. After I trim the bolt some, there is nothing to hit. It does not look like it in the photos but there is at least a 1/4 inch clearance between the nut and transmission. And I really think there is little to no movement when the engine/trans/assembly is bolted up solid. Right now I can pick up one rear corner of the frame about 10 inches (that's all the strength I have) and the other corner has not moved from the saw horses, and the front corners have not moved either. SO, with three corners still resting on the sawhorses, and that much twist in the frame nothing is even close to being in a bind, and the trans is still supported by the hanger. I think it is going to work very well....
Donnie - Very interesting thread for sure! I guess the one thing that most everyone agrees with is that the auxiliary transmission hanging way back there definitely needs some sort of support. I did like your single spring arrangement Donnie, however, the "bounce" effect that several have mentioned does seem to make sense too. I had a crazy idea from all this that I can't quite get out of my head that the spring set-up with some sort of compact friction shock absorber might be a good arrangement, but then I don't like the idea of too much extra "stuff" added either. So what do you think? Does some sort of spring to help lift the extra hanging weight make sense if dampened by friction? Sure a lot of forces at work to try to visualize,.......harold
Hey Donnin I really like your design I am just wondering if you shifted The transformation are your shift rods going to hit your bracket cannot tell by the pictures If there going to clear ....bill
William, The shift rods have plenty of room as-is. But I am trimming a little hear and there more for looks, than any real need. Harold, I believe the "shock" idea would be hard to build. And I really do not think there is much "bounce" if the spring is stiff enough to give support. I came around to the idea that we are only trying to limit downward movement. The rubber bushing achieves that very well and also should have some effect on sound vibration. The spring design would be all metal to metal contact, and may have transmitted vibration sounds worse. I will not know for sure if there is any sound transfer till I actually try it out. One problem I had with the design of the support sold by Snyders. is lack of control of how much weight the rubber is actually holding. Is it pushing up on the transmission. or is it too low and not supporting fully. Also as it wears, how do you correct for rubber flattening out or shrinking. I believe the shock bushing I am using is hard enough to wear well, and I can also keep check on its supporting properly, just by ocassonially checking to see if it has any up and down slack while at rest. As long as there is "no slack" and I am not over tightening the hanger bolt to "pull up" on the trans I believe it gives proper support. And since it does not hold the trans from moving left to right or front to rear in any way. I think it should work OK.
Worford "Tee" 4 speed transmission (over or under drive + direct) mounting brackets. Not sure about the year but this does show that there were some made.
Mark, I have never seen that brace before. Thanks for picture. I have also never seen a brace for the cars. I have only seen the braces for the TT Trucks. I have a different style cast iron Warford brace for the TT Trucks. It attaches under the trans and sits in the lower frame rail and is clamped into place. Basically opposite the one shown above. By being clamped instead of bolted, is in my opinion, how they overcome the twisting of the frames. It would allow for "slippage" at the clamping point.
Remember the brace shown is for the lighter 4 speed not the 6 speed. To me it looks like the brace was bolted to the back of the cover. Too bad the ends of the pads that sit on the frame rail are not shown better. I have on loan the TT type U channel and clamps for the 6 speed. I agree on the slippage and allowing for flex using the clamps. The coupe in the illustration looks like it could be a ether a 24/25 or 26/27 so this could have been a later improvement for the weight of even the lighter transmission hanging off the back and adding some bracing after cutting out the running board cross support. I just came across this today, found it on line.
We have been doing some pricing on making the clamps.
At some point it would be nice to find the factory cross brace used in conjunction with the heavier 6 speed when installed in cars or light deliveries to maybe have some made, if there was such a thing.