BOP Engine with a fatory T56 (LT, LS, Viper) Anyone Done it?

[online170]

Just curious if anyone has done this. Theres kits out there for it, so im sure theres probably about 4 people the world who have.

Just curious which avenue you took to make it work. I plan to put a LT1 T56 behind a Buick 455 in the coming year.

Im interested in;
-How the transmission mated to the engine
-What clucth setup you went with (T56, Muncie, Hydraulic, or Manual)?
-What did you do for pedals?

Im planning to use a muncie style SFI bell housing, and the the "adapter plate" from T56 to bellhousing.
Going with a Mcleod muncie style clutch, Z-bar, and A-body 4sp pedals.
LS1 input shaft, extended pilot bushing, building the T56 to viper spec.

Im aware of the Keisler kit, i want 6 speeds :)

[Socrates]

Check out the topic I just bumped to the top for you in this section...or just click here:

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63343

I get a bunch of email and PM's on this conversion that I think would be helpful if posted publicly, so feel free to use my write up for relevant Q&A if you need any help. Best wishes for your conversion.

[online170]

Thanks for the link. I have seen that thread before, i didnt realize it was from this site.

How do you like the clutch? Is the hydraulic throwout bearing any smoother or lighter than the muncie manual Z-bar?

[Socrates]

I love the clutch and CSC action. The setup is butter smooth, firm but not leg numbing stiff, and worlds smoother then the old muscle car Z-bar setup I've had before (1978 ws6 w72 Trans Am with a ST-10 and a 72 GTO with a 455 and M21, for reference). My clutch disc grabs very nicely as well, so all around a nice combination. As I've done with oldschool z-bar setups, I've been able to set the hydraulic clutch to disengage with the pedal just off of the floor, which makes controlling launches very predictable. If and only if I already had ALL the mechanical 4spd linkage parts would I even half consider using the original clutch setup for the car, and only then if I was trying to pinch a penny. The hydraulics setup is just so elegant, so simple and so smooth, and the trans shifts so precise, smooth and controlled, that it's hard driving anything else now. Getting into my 4spd Scout II after driving the GTO takes a bit of getting used to (although I do have a NV4500 with hyd clutch in the works for the Scout as well :) )

[online170]

Awesome, i dont think ive met anyone who has tried both clutches to be able to comment up till now.

Ive tried them both also, and i agree the T56 is probably the nicest clutch ive ever tried.

But i wouldnt "mind" the Z-bar linkage setup either. It wasnt as bad as the T10. Mostly just leaning that way because i havent found a company that makes a good setup for a adapted hydraulic bearing.

Also i wouldnt have to deal with adapting the pedals like you had to. Thanks for the insight.

[Socrates]

The mechanical setup has its virtues: adjustments are easy; when they fail, they can be easier and cheaper to repair; and of course they don't potentially spew brake fluid all over your nice expensive clutch disc if they really let go. The mechanical has it's plusses, and surely a lot of folks like the feel of mechanical better, making it a personal thing. Personally, the strengths of the hydraulic outweigh the mechanical for me. I wish you were closer, as I'd just let you drive mine so you could experience the hydraulic setup for yourself...or I suppose you could also just test drive one of these (in my favorite color :) )

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[online170]

Well i did drive the LT1 hydraulic clutch behind a Gen1 SBC for about a year an a half, and it was WORLDS ahead of any clutch feel i had experienced.

The only manual i didnt mind driving in rush hour traffic up till then was a twin cam saturn 4 banger :).

So i know why the T56 hydraulic is so praised. Its a tough decision.

[barraza]

It is interesting that this question comes up repeatedly. It all depends whether or not you are starting from scratch, and what type of engine. When these trannys were relatively new, there was money to be made by vendors selling conversion stuff to put them in old cars. The best alternative was always swept under the rug because it bolted in, ie the aftermarket T56. There just wasn't any money to be made from a trans that came with the adapter plate, correct input shaft, and gear driven speedo output. For a car that had a 4spd already, it was a bolt in, requiring only a shorter drive shaft and a crossmember. This was especially true for BOP conversions, because the trans bolted directly to a 4spd bellhousing without screwing with block adapting. It also came with better ratios for most cars. The aftermarket T56 used to sell for under $2K brand new, but I haven't seen it advertised for a while.

If you are starting from scratch, a hydraulic clutch is fine, but there is nothing wrong with the mechanical linkage, it works fine and will NEVER fail.

[Socrates]

there is nothing wrong with the mechanical linkage, it works fine and will NEVER fail.

Sorry, I'm gonna have to flag that one as BS. Linkage bends and breaks, rods fail, z-bar bushings wear out and the holes wallow, retaining pins work loose, the mechanical bearing itself will fail, too. All of this leaves you stranded, or stuck in one gear, or learning to find the RPM sweet spot where gear speeds match so you can shift gears clutchless to limp home. Mechanical setups are complex compared to a simple hydraulic setup. More parts always equals more points of possible failure.

[barraza]

Sorry, I'm gonna have to flag that one as BS. Linkage bends and breaks, rods fail, z-bar bushings wear out and the holes wallow, retaining pins work loose, the mechanical bearing itself will fail, too. All of this leaves you stranded, or stuck in one gear, or learning to find the RPM sweet spot where gear speeds match so you can shift gears clutchless to limp home. Mechanical setups are complex compared to a simple hydraulic setup. More parts always equals more points of possible failure.

Bull.
There is nothing more simple and durable and reliable than a zbar setup. It has three moving parts unless you count the fork, but some hydraulic set ups have those also. No seals, no cylinders, no leaks. I have had many vehicles with hundreds of thousands of miles, some 60 plus years old, and NEVER had a mechanical clutch linkage fail or wear out.

[Socrates]

Barraza, I take it your mechanical linkage parts made of Adamantium?

If not, as it relates to this T56 conversion topic, let's see what each setup contains:

Mechanical
2 rods,
Z link with its bushings,
Fork, and the
Throwout bearing itself

=5 wear/failure parts

-vs-

Hydraulic
Master cylinder with hose, and a
Concentric slave cylinder

=2 wear/failure parts


I'm amazed that you believe a mechanical clutch setup is infallible. Despite your own extreme good fortune, surely you've at least heard of, if not seen, a broken or bent fork or rods, disintegrated z-rod bushings or wasted mounting holes, lost rod retaining pins or a seized throwout bearing on the cars of other people? I've never had a hydraulic clutch failure myself (yet I had a mechanical failure in my racing 78 Trans Am), so, by your reasoning, does that mean I can now go online and tell everyone that hydraulic clutches are infallible, unbreakable and otherwise perfect?

As I've said repeatedly here, I have actually used both mech. and hyd. clutch setups in multiple vehicles. I've personally converted my own vehicles (note, plural) from automatic to manual transmissions, using both hyd. and mech. setups for the conversion. I currently use and like both setups just fine. Both have their place and both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

That said, what do you figure the percent of hydraulic vs mechanical clutches are found on 2010 performance vehicles? Do any modern sports cars even use mechanical setups? None come to mind. When was the last time a factory T56 or TR6060 cars came with a mechanical setup? Surely the hydraulics can't be all evil. :cheers:

[online170]

Which Hydraulic setup are you using? Is it aftermarket or did you adapt your own?

I noticed you said something about LS1 front plate on an LT1 to accept the bearing assembly.

[Socrates]

I'm using a 2004 Viper slave (CSC) and a 2002 LS1 Trans Am clutch master cylinder. The master is modified for ~1.5" of stroke over the factory ~1" travel by simply cutting the internal stop in half. The factory 1" MC travel just barely fully disengaged the clutch, as tested by turning the output yoke by hand with the pedal to the floor. The 1.5" is needed to make sure full disengagement is obtained at, say, a 6,000 RPM front wheels up launch :)

Although the very affordable LS1 MC is working great so far in recent heavy street action, I'll reserve final judgement until after the setup has a few track laps and a couple dozen 1/4 mile blasts under its belt. If the LS1 piece can't keep up with me and the rest of the car I'll step up to a Tilton MC with 3/4" or 7/8" bore and 1.5" stroke, ran with a bigger line to the CSC...

[barraza]

Barraza, I take it your mechanical linkage parts made of Adamantium?

If not, as it relates to this T56 conversion topic, let's see what each setup contains:

Mechanical
2 rods,
Z link with its bushings,
Fork, and the
Throwout bearing itself

=5 wear/failure parts

-vs-

Hydraulic
Master cylinder with hose, and a
Concentric slave cylinder

=2 wear/failure parts


In your alternate universe, what exactly connects the pedal to the master cylinder? Air? or the same link that connects the pedal to the z bar? Hydraulic units have no bearing?? Seals never fail? Hoses never leak or get burned by headers? I think 2 cylinders are much more likely to fail than the chunk off steel the zbar consists of.


I'm amazed that you believe a mechanical clutch setup is infallible. Despite your own extreme good fortune, surely you've at least heard of, if not seen, a broken or bent fork or rods, disintegrated z-rod bushings or wasted mounting holes, lost rod retaining pins or a seized throwout bearing on the cars of other people?
Nope, never on anything that has been even remotely maintained. But check this forum and you will find many, many hydraulic failures. Usually requiring a trans removal to fix. Don't reinvent the wheel. Ever heard of K.I.S.S. ?


I've never had a hydraulic clutch failure myself (yet I had a mechanical failure in my racing 78 Trans Am), so, by your reasoning, does that mean I can now go online and tell everyone that hydraulic clutches are infallible, unbreakable and otherwise perfect?
What failed? Pieces of steel don't just fall apart from normal use, unless you are talking about a throwout bearing, but surely you realize a hydraulic setup has one of those too.



That said, what do you figure the percent of hydraulic vs mechanical clutches are found on 2010 performance vehicles? Do any modern sports cars even use mechanical setups? None come to mind. When was the last time a factory T56 or TR6060 cars came with a mechanical setup? Surely the hydraulics can't be all evil. :cheers:

I never said they were evil, just that they are not more reliable. Modern cars use them primarily for packaging issues and noise, vibration, and harshness(NVH). My whole point before you went on the tangent was that a T56 DID come ready to plug right in where a 4 speed was, it was the aftermarket version developed to replace the T5 in gen 3 camaros. It bolted right to a 4speed bellhousing, used a standard clutch and linkage, and had a gear driven speedo output, and had a more old car friendly .62 sixth gear. It was infrequently promoted because magazines were pushing the install kits of various advertisers. They just never bothered to tell everyone that by the time you bought a used ls1 t56, and a special flywheel and clutch, and a way to drive the speedo, and a hydraulic clutch setup, you would have spent more than getting a NEW t56. This is especially true when talking about a BOP installation, put it on a 4speed bell, and you are ready to go.

[avmechanic]

Just curious if anyone has done this. Theres kits out there for it, so im sure theres probably about 4 people the world who have.

Just curious which avenue you took to make it work. I plan to put a LT1 T56 behind a Buick 455 in the coming year.

Im interested in;
-How the transmission mated to the engine
-What clucth setup you went with (T56, Muncie, Hydraulic, or Manual)?
-What did you do for pedals?

Im planning to use a muncie style SFI bell housing, and the the "adapter plate" from T56 to bellhousing.
Going with a Mcleod muncie style clutch, Z-bar, and A-body 4sp pedals.
LS1 input shaft, extended pilot bushing, building the T56 to viper spec.

Im aware of the Keisler kit, i want 6 speeds :)
I was looking into this combo for my Buick 455 in my skylark. These guys have a bellhousing that fits the lt1 or ls1 t56 that fits the BOP pattern. They have clutch combos as well. http://www.weirhotrodproducts.com/
Greg

[online170]

Im familiar with that kit. I did alot of searching to find if anyone has used the kit and talked about it on the net. I only found 1 review, and it wasnt the greatest.

What Weir has done is make a casting that does the same thing as a SFI bellhousing and Adapter plate, and made his own version of the hydraulic throwout bearing.

Lakewood, Quicktime, and McLeod have years of experience, and tracktime under their belt, Weir doesnt. So to come out with a hotrodded version of the bell and bearing is just that, hotrodded..... That was the only review i could find, and the guy said it didnt have a professional fit and feel to it like some of the other names.

Ive talked to Weir over the phone as well, i was curious how his bellhouring cures the LT1 and LS1 flywheel mounting to a BOP, and it doesnt. The bell is meant to be used with muncie or T10 type flywheels, he just replaces the clutch with a hydraulic version.

On top of this, the price is almost the same for his conversion parts, compared to some of the big name conversion stuff out there.

Personally, ill stick with a brand name on this one. Just preference, not experience.

[John Wright]

Have you looked at the McLeod modular bell for BOP apps?

[online170]

yea my buddy just used on on his olds 455 to bolt up an autogear muncie.

Its a nice peice. But it still requires the adapter plate to work with a T56

[John Wright]

I used the McLeod modular for the SBC one piece rear seal to a Viper T56..the adapter plate came with the bell along with all of the bolts to bolt it all up.....kinda pricey, but it all worked well togther....and I was able to use my high torque starter also....

[KeislerGene]

Guys there is any easier solution.

Quicktime offers Bell for either Viper or LS T56 best to use hydraulic clutch for this. I would stay away from the LT1 as it had a reverse clutch actuation and a short input.

Those bells are specifically designed to bolt them directly up unlike the Mcleod and Weir product. Or the easiest most cost effective way is to do the adapter so you can hook it up directly behind the bop bell and use mechanical linkage.

[online170]

Gene, does that Bell work for BOP? Im guessing you use an older flywheel clutch system, but use the LS throwought bearing correct?

[KeislerGene]

Gene, does that Bell work for BOP? Im guessing you use an older flywheel clutch system, but use the LS throwought bearing correct?


Yes it is BOP to LS the LS bearing however may be hard to use. It will depend on the clutch and flywheel and how much room you have for it.

The factory cars clutch and flywheel had a specific stack height that had to be met for the bearing to work properly. I don't know if there are spacers available for the stock T56 bearing to be adjusted.

I offer a hydraulic set up if needed. I even have customer master cylinder mounts for many of the popular cars. So it eliminates guess work.

[oldzzy]

Guys there is any easier solution.

Quicktime offers Bell for either Viper or LS T56 best to use hydraulic clutch for this. .

Does this mean you can't use the mechanical setup with the Quicktime?

[John Wright]

Does this mean you can't use the mechanical setup with the Quicktime?
I'm not sure about the LS T56, but the Viper T56 that I have will only work with the hydraulic setup, period...there is no place to put the fork pivot ball for one thing....it came factory as a hydraulic setup.

[KeislerGene]

Does this mean you can't use the mechanical setup with the Quicktime?


No hydrualic only with quicktime. Unles you plate the T56 and use there bop to muncie or TKO bell.

[KeislerGene]

I'm not sure about the LS T56, but the Viper T56 that I have will only work with the hydraulic setup, period...there is no place to put the fork pivot ball for one thing....it came factory as a hydraulic setup.


You could also plate it to run Mechanical linkage and then bolt it to your stock bell.