Looking at a possible '65 purchase. Are there any known street cars that were produced with a cast iron T-10 housing? Page 229 of the 2011 Registry says the R-Models could have had either aluminum or cast, but from what I'm seeing it appears the street cars only had aluminum. Thanks!
Hi 67#0083,
Later cars received a cast iron housing, plus a main case made of cast iron. Likely a cost cutting measure. It is possible that between the early all aluminum and the later all cast iron T-10M-1's, some hybrids with a mix could have been made, but I have not read this in any documentation. You would have to ask an original owner of a middle production cars. I know 6S1757 has an all cast iron T-10M-1 with the close ratio M high nickel gears.
It is also hard to judge if a car came with the cast iron tail housing and aluminum main case. They are out there. So, where they replaced due to damage to the aluminum tail housing or did they come that way from Shelby American/Ford. Hard to tell.
Best of luck
Cory
Quote from: 67#0083 on July 31, 2024, 11:08:54 PMLooking at a possible '65 purchase. Are there any known street cars that were produced with a cast iron T-10 housing? Page 229 of the 2011 Registry says the R-Models could have had either aluminum or cast, but from what I'm seeing it appears the street cars only had aluminum. Thanks!
It was 66 production when the trans started to evolve. 65 was typically all aluminum with the exception of some of the competition models.
Thanks, guys!
My 1966 GT350 #930 has an Aluminum T-10M with a Cast tail shaft.
Quote from: Bob Gaines on August 01, 2024, 12:44:11 AMQuote from: 67#0083 on July 31, 2024, 11:08:54 PMLooking at a possible '65 purchase. Are there any known street cars that were produced with a cast iron T-10 housing? Page 229 of the 2011 Registry says the R-Models could have had either aluminum or cast, but from what I'm seeing it appears the street cars only had aluminum. Thanks!
It was 66 production when the trans started to evolve. 65 was typically all aluminum with the exception of some of the competition models.
By your observation that some "R" models had the cast iron T-10, is that suggestive that the cast iron T-10s were more durable i.e. stronger that the aluminum ones?
Shelby had significant racing failures of the aluminum long tail housing T-10L used in the Cobras. I personally experience it too. It's reasonable to assume they phased in the cast iron parts to the GT350's based on their Cobra experience.
Quote from: deathsled on October 27, 2025, 02:52:26 PM. . . . . is that suggestive that the cast iron T-10s were more durable i.e. stronger that the aluminum ones?
Yes. ;)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on October 27, 2025, 03:24:15 PMQuote from: deathsled on October 27, 2025, 02:52:26 PM. . . . . is that suggestive that the cast iron T-10s were more durable i.e. stronger that the aluminum ones?
Yes. ;)
Scott.
I don't think the main case was a problem issue near as much as the tail shaft and to a lessor extent side cover. The early ones used and sold by SA were aluminum . Later ones used and sold (67 up)were all cast iron.
It wasn't so much that one would break the case, it was more about the fact that as the engine power capabilities increased, the cars got heavier, the tires and suspensions got better providing greater "bite", the aluminum cases just weren't rigid enough, this allowed the gear sets to push move out of position excessively, upsetting the drive load conveyance relationships between them and resulting in, if not breakage, just poor service life.
Also, the case bearing bores, particularly that for the front input shaft would get "oval(ed)" or just lose it's "hold" on the bearing race as the alloy would become compressed or be displaced, and allowing it to then "spin" damaging the case and again allowing the gear sets to move out of their intended positioning; this also being less prevalent with cast iron examples. :(
As for the tail-housings, they were fine until the same vehicular advancements that took place, and then when one managed to induce "wheel-hop", with also greater frequency and force, the aluminum tails would be snapped-off. The cast iron tail-housings "fixed" part of the problem, but then, in truly violent instances, it wouldn't break, but instead, when the aluminum alloy was tested beyond it's capabilities, could be ripped off the back of the aluminum case, or more frequently, the whole transmission just being removed at the bellhousing juncture, leaving the aluminum case ears behind, still bolted in place! :o
The conversion to cast iron was just the most efficient and judicious (aka. cheapest) way to extend the life span of the T10 product into the next decade, without a 'complete' re-engineering effort; as B.W. obviously felt that that would have been capital better spent on the "next generation" of transmission. ::)
Scott.
I purchased a 66 mustang fastback as a shell with what I assume is the original 289 and a cast iron T10. Im building it as an R Model tribute with a stroked motor with modern internals so it should be in the neighborhood of 350-400HP. My question is, should I go ahead and upgrade to a toploader or is the T10 sufficient for the modern motor's power?
Toploader IMHO
Quote from: pbf777 on October 27, 2025, 06:37:50 PMIt wasn't so much that one would break the case, it was more about the fact that as the engine power capabilities increased, the cars got heavier, the tires and suspensions got better providing greater "bite", the aluminum cases just weren't rigid enough, this allowed the gear sets to push move out of position excessively, upsetting the drive load conveyance relationships between them and resulting in, if not breakage, just poor service life.
Also, the case bearing bores, particularly that for the front input shaft would get "oval(ed)" or just lose it's "hold" on the bearing race as the alloy would become compressed or be displaced, and allowing it to then "spin" damaging the case and again allowing the gear sets to move out of their intended positioning; this also being less prevalent with cast iron examples. :(
As for the tail-housings, they were fine until the same vehicular advancements that took place, and then when one managed to induce "wheel-hop", with also greater frequency and force, the aluminum tails would be snapped-off. The cast iron tail-housings "fixed" part of the problem, but then, in truly violent instances, it wouldn't break, but instead, when the aluminum alloy was tested beyond it's capabilities, could be ripped off the back of the aluminum case, or more frequently, the whole transmission just being removed at the bellhousing juncture, leaving the aluminum case ears behind, still bolted in place! :o
The conversion to cast iron was just the most efficient and judicious (aka. cheapest) way to extend the life span of the T10 product into the next decade, without a 'complete' re-engineering effort; as B.W. obviously felt that that would have been capital better spent on the "next generation" of transmission. ::)
Scott.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this detailed explanation!
Quote from: mlplunkett on October 29, 2025, 08:29:39 PMI purchased a 66 mustang fastback as a shell with what I assume is the original 289 and a cast iron T10. Im building it as an R Model tribute with a stroked motor with modern internals so it should be in the neighborhood of 350-400HP. My question is, should I go ahead and upgrade to a toploader or is the T10 sufficient for the modern motor's power?
It depends on how exact you are trying to make the tribute. The T10 is what you expect to see on a original.The toploader although different will give less worry of breaking IMO.