Im getting ready to install my KC Warford trans in the 1927 touring. My main question is do I install a gasket between the trans and the rear of the engine. I would think any oil that leaks past the 4th main would be OK in the area between the engine and KC Warford. A gasket would help with oil leaks. I have read that I need to hold up on the KC Warford as I tighten the bolts between the KC Warford and the rear of the engine. It is supposed to help with the alignment of the square shaft and stop noise at that point. I also have the large O-Ring that is used to help with alignment. I know to cut off the front running board bracket to have clearance for the KC Warford. Any other suggestions as to installing the transmission will be appreciated. Also any suggestions as to what type of grease is best at the rear of the KC Warford where the torque tube ball fits into the aluminum case. How much and what type of gear oil is used in the KC Warford. I do not have any instructions as I am not the original purchaser of the trans... I may try to get the instructions from the manufacturer in the next few days. Thanks ...
The instructions for the install of your KC Warford are on the Texas T Web site. Just click on the KC Warford tab and a PDF file will be at the bottom of the page.
ya but it's was not easy to find them!
Supporting the rear of the Warford is a good idea. Many have made their own supports, but I found using this one was easy to do. https://www.modeltford.com/item/WARFSP.aspx
Thanks for the link to the instructions. They pretty much answered all my questions.
John, This is in a 27 model touring with the improved engine having the two support bolts at the rear of the engine supporting the hogs head. My personal feelings about a brace is it is not needed on 26-27 models when using a KC Warford or an aluminum original Warford. But a brace should be used if using a cast iron Warford in a 26-27 with Improved engine. I also think a brace is a good idea with any accessory transmission in a 1925 or earlier car. disclaimer time These are my personal thoughts, Thanks for the input
It's probably best to call the KC Layne people to get their recommendation but as I understand, 140 wt is recommended for the new Warford. A club member who did use 140 wt, is having problems with getting his Warford in gear if he doesn't let it warm up really well before trying it. Another club member is using 80-90 wt and is having no problems. He called them and asked. Their reply was to use 80-90 for the climate/temps here.
So, it seems there is room for different weights of lube based on the average temps where you expect to operate. Let KC tell you what is correct for you.
Donnie -- Think of the extra stress put on the crankcase ears by adding that extra weight. I know you've seen plenty of broken crankcase ears, as have most of us. For someone with your capabilities, adding some support to the rear of the Warford would be a piece of cake.
It really aggravates me when I see those transmission supports attached by drilling holes in the frame. It is VERY easy to mount them using either long U bolts or two long bolts and two flat pieces used as you would use U bolts. On my TT that had a Chicago three speed transmission, they used the U bolt setup, I think. It was one or the other, I've seen both types used for different transmissions, it's been a while since I've seen it. Maybe Dallas can post some pictures when he gets a chance. Dave
I agree with Dave; the reason I haven't bought one of the supports is I'm not going to drill my frame. I know I can modify their kit, but if I'm going to go to that trouble I may as well just build it. I'd rather save the time and buy it if it had decent mounting option.
Shocked when I read about the drilling the frame to mount the support. It's so easy to make a hanger type or a clamp type. I think every Warford needs a little support. It sure makes good sense.
I would sure like to know how much oil it takes to fill up to that level where the KC guys have installed a plug! I just might drill and install a pipe plug in mine but the wall is pretty thin and I'm not sure of the exact level.
Donnie, My care is a 26 and having all that weight of even the KC Warford I chose to use the support. That is a bunch of weight hanging off the back and when you consider the roads we take on tours, having the weight bounce around can't be a good thing. As to using the support, you can either drill the frame, or do what Dave Stroud describes above.
I would recommend modifying the shifter so that it can't easily be knocked out of gear. I have a 26 touring that I bought that had been rolled because it was knocked into neutral and even with the rockies the driver lost control (a steep hill going backwards).
Extra support for iron Warford:
I know this has been extensively discussed on the forum before, but I have my own ideas about what I think is needed in the area of extra support, and my thoughts disagree from the type of support presently listed in Langs catalog for $350.00!
Even though this support incorporates a rubber bushing, the support bolts to the bottom of the frame as well as to the back of the Warford transmission. I strongly believe that this the wrong kind of support. The Model T chassis was designed to be "FLEXIBLE", and while I agree that modern roads are much better than those of the Model T era, there are still times when the Model T is subjected to chassis flex, such as entering and exiting a steep gas station apron at an angle for example. I believe an extra support bolted to Model T frame and the Warford transmission, can subject considerable undesirable forces to the back of the Warford which causes considerable forces and strain to the somewhat non-rigid Model T power plant,....even the '26-'27 somewhat more rigid power plant.
I believe that the proper support to the back of the Warford must come from a type of support that merely tends to apply approximately 50 or 60 lbs of lifting and steady support to the rear of the Warford, and this 50 or 60 lbs of support should remain constant at all times, regardless of any road conditions that tend to cause frame flex.
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm stick'n to it,..... (:^).... harold
I agree with Harold. Im not a fan of the support design that is being sold by Langs.
Here is a link to the support that I designed for the speedster project (it has a 1919 engine). After hours and hours of thinking, trial and error, testing, and several forum discussions, It is the final design that I came up with. I believe it does everything Harold wants, just from the top instead of from the bottom.
The subject of auxillary transmission supports has been discussed before. It is similar to what bands to use, what oil to use, waterpumps, and Marvel Mystery Oil.
I still think an aluminum Warford on a 26 27 engine does not need a support. Everything else does need a support.
Dennis, That is a good suggestion, I may do something similar on my shifter.
As to broken crankcase arms, that is a whole different discussion. I think one of the "major" causes of broken crankcase arms is improper use of the wooden blocks between the arm and the frame. But that discussion is for another time.
Time for my disclaimer again. The above opinions are my personal thoughts on the matter....
have fun and be safe.
I was reading through this thread and thinking I needed to weigh in on this. Then came the postings by Harold and Donnie and now I am just supporting what they are saying. (No pun intended) I attended the winter clinic in Hutchinson, KS that covered the auxiliary transmissions. The question of support was brought up. I was sitting next to the guy that designed the KC Warford. I don't remember his first name, but, yes his last name is Layne. He also was concerned with the need for the T frame to flex without being fixed to the transmission. He said that any support should let the transmission still move with relation to the frame. It looks like the support that Donnie came up with would serve that purpose. Food for thought.
Here's one I made several years ago, and I've done a couple since. I used 2" x 1" channel iron for the crossmember, with a 50's Chevy motor mount rubber donut on it. A short piece of 2" x 2" angle aluminum (it's what I had in stock which would work) is bolted to the rear of the Warford to provide a flat area there. The Warford rests upon the rubber donut, which gives a small amount of lift to the tranny. The tranny is free to move and twist, but cannot move downward. It worked quite well.
Can you show what your attachment to the frame looks like?
Gary -- It's just a bolt thru the lower flange of the frame rail. I did it that way because it was simple and easy, and it allowed me to use washers for shims if necessary to get the amount of lift right. You can see some big washers under the rubber donut supporting the Warford. I didn't need any at the crossmember's ends, which would have lowered it.
I got chastised for bolting it to the frame flange when I posted this several years ago. "Would have been much stronger" to put it up into the frame and attach to the vertical part of the rail, yada, yada. Probably so, but it worked just fine like this.
And yes, I did drill one 3/8" hole in each frame rail.
This is the support for the Chicago 3 speed David Stroud was talking about. No holes to drill.
Thanks Dallas. I hope that these pictures help. The bolt in the center of the support has a spring both top and bottom to set the preload, although it's kind of hard to see. (Gee Dallas, why is that so greasy under there? ) Simple and easy to make something similar. Dave
Here is a (rusty) view from the top