Toploader Rebuild

All the stuff under the car, Transmission, Brakes, Suspension & Steering
CALIFORNIA CALIENTE
Posts: 5933
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Camarillo,California

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by CALIFORNIA CALIENTE »

Joe;I've used both,the only thing I liked better with the bushing was it is easier to remove,should be a non-issue on a street car!!! ROY.
Real Racecars have 3 pedals
Image

popscomet
Posts: 9693
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by popscomet »

I agree with Roy ,got bearing in my comet/5.0 CAPRI,put bushing in 390 for my 66 pu,are you supposed to be able to tell any difference ? I can't !! :) pop :D
Image
pop/glenda

comethead
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:44 pm
Location: Palmdale, CA

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by comethead »

popscomet wrote:I agree with Roy ,got bearing in my comet/5.0 CAPRI,put bushing in 390 for my 66 pu,are you supposed to be able to tell any difference ? I can't !! :) pop :D
I didnt think you could tell the difference...just wanted to know which lasts longer (usually). I kinda dont want to have to pull the trans again any time soon. Thanks ya'll...Im going with a bushing.

Joe
1965 Caliente HT- 289/4 speed
1964 Falcon HT- track car- 302/4 speed
Image

CALIFORNIA CALIENTE
Posts: 5933
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Camarillo,California

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by CALIFORNIA CALIENTE »

Joe;both were designed for 100,000+ miles!!!! ROY.
Real Racecars have 3 pedals
Image

popscomet
Posts: 9693
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by popscomet »

Last year when I had to replace clutch in my comet,the bearing was just as good as when I put it in back in the early to middle 90's,just put some grease on end of finger and repacked it while still in crank-shaft,have pulled trans out and found bushing wallard out ( kinda EGG shaped),but being able to say which is the best for every day type use,I can't! I put 100,000 miles on a 240 6cyl 71 pu,pulled it out to put in a v8 and that bushing was as near perfect as you could ask for. POP :D
Image
pop/glenda

comethead
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:44 pm
Location: Palmdale, CA

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by comethead »

Thanks guys! Good info...shes coming together this week if work and kiddies let me. :cry:

Joe
1965 Caliente HT- 289/4 speed
1964 Falcon HT- track car- 302/4 speed
Image

6T5 404
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:44 pm
Location: Mansfield, OH

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by 6T5 404 »

Joe,

I didnt think you could tell the difference...just wanted to know which lasts longer (usually). I kinda dont want to have to pull the trans again any time soon. Thanks ya'll...Im going with a bushing.

As many times as you have had that transmission in and out I would have thought you would have installed a "transmission zipper". They really make the job easier.

Dave

comethead
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:44 pm
Location: Palmdale, CA

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by comethead »

6T5 404 wrote:As many times as you have had that transmission in and out I would have thought you would have installed a "transmission zipper". They really make the job easier.

Dave
Thanks Dave, I have one on order. :lol: Too late for this round though...Im sure itll come out again. My luck.

Joe
1965 Caliente HT- 289/4 speed
1964 Falcon HT- track car- 302/4 speed
Image

comethead
Posts: 5692
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:44 pm
Location: Palmdale, CA

Re: Toploader Rebuild

Post by comethead »

So lets drag this out a little more...

I went to the David Kee site for gear oil info http://www.davidkeetoploaders.com/specifications.htm. Then I did a search (I think I searched "toploader gear oil") and I found that GL-5 gear oils have additives that erode "yellow metals' (brass synchro blocker rings) and some guys say stay away from GL-5 and the multi-spec stuff too. Also, I read stay away from synthetics because they are too slick for the toploader. Wise words say to stick with GL-4 75W90.

(Found this info on another forum:
"Gather round boys and girls. I have gone through my notes taken at a transmission seminar several years ago regarding the use of GL-4 and GL-5 spec lubes. Maybe this subject has been broached on this forum before, I don't know. Didn't find much when I did a search.
The difference between the two designations is based on their EP or Extreme Pressure ratings. GL-4 can be used in transmissions, but generally not specified for hypoid gear final drives. It does not have the required EP properties for that usage. GL-5 was developed for that usage. The same "weight" viscosity of base stock is used to make both so most people and many lube suppliers say you can use GL-5 where GL-4 is called for. You will even see labels stating that the contents meet all GL-4 and GL-5 specifications.
We run into problems when copper based alloys, (yellow metals) are used in the gearbox. The problems stem from the sulphur and phosphorous additives used in the oils. GL-5 has about twice the levels of these compounds as GL-4. Even opened up a rear diff and noticed that black deposit on everything? That's the sulphur/phosphorous additive doing it's job. The normal heating and mechanical agitation causes a thin film of this to coat the gears, and everything else it touches also. This film forms a barrier between the two gear mating surfaces, and this sacrificial coating is worn off instead of the steel of the gears being worn. From this you can see that final drives require higher levels of the sulphur/phosphorus additives than transmissions. So, why not use GL-5 in everything?
Well, the sulphur/phosphorous additive lays down its coating on brass as well, but the coating is harder than the base material. When the additive layer is stripped off by the rubbing action, it takes a thin layer of brass with it. The additive lays down a new layer, and it's stripped off in turn, taking more brass with it. With the higher levels of the additive in GL-5, the brass is corroded away much faster. GL-4 has enough additive to protect the steel parts, but not so much as to cause accelerated wear of brass components. It's a balancing act of sorts. If you were to analyse used GL-4 and GL-5 from the same gearbox, the GL-4 would show less brass in suspension than the GL-5. Use just enough additive to protect the steel but not so much as to cause accelerated corrosion of the brass parts."
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vinta ... noise.html)
Wow :shock:

OK No problem. Five auto parts stores later do you think I found 75W90 GL-4? Nope.
I found 75W90 in synthetic only...and if its dino oil its GL-5.
More internet searching and I found this http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/mtg.aspx the good stuff...GL-4 and the right viscosity. But its synthetic. Amsoil specifically lists the toploader trans in the specs...but the synthetic stuff makes me nervous in this old dinosaur trans. I dont want to wreck the synchros and destroy the gears and bend my shift linkage and make it leak. :lol:
I just want to mildly drive my old car...shift smooth...not remove transmissions every weekend. :roll:

So I went to Napa and got this http://crcindustries.com/auto/?s=SL24229 ... its 85W90 GL-4.

Im sure my transmission will explode after only a few miles. This information (and mis-information) overload has me nuts. I need an old Ford dude sitting in my garage with me...drinking a beer on the chair...so that when I roll out from under the car and ask another dumb question he can say "Shet up ya dummy...just fill the derned thing with gear oil and git me another beer! It aint that complicated....its 45 years old for crites sake!" :|

Joe
1965 Caliente HT- 289/4 speed
1964 Falcon HT- track car- 302/4 speed
Image

Post Reply