 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / June 2005AOD questions
Anyone here an expert on AODs? I'm working a 91 version. I'm replacing the front and rear seals. The rear was tight, but I got the seal in. Trans pan/filter is easy of course. Problem is the front. There is a panel with about 7 bolts on the front of the trans (behind converter) that the forward shaft comes through, and you can see the fwd seal. Question is, am I supposed to remove this panel to push the seal out from the back, or pry it out? The panel doesn't seem to want to come out and I don't want to pry on it. Thanks in advance. Gary Sounds like you are referring to the pump.... probably not something you'd want to remove by accident. Hopefully, neither the O-ring nor the gasket has suffered any injury from your attempts to remove it. The trans filter pushes up into the pump and that is what is likely all that's holding it in place. The seal is pried (carefully) from the front. Work carefully since it is possible to damage both the seal bore and the pump bushing. HTH. > Anyone here an expert on AODs? I'm working a 91 version. I'm replacing the > front and rear seals. The rear was tight, but I got the seal in. Trans [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gary Thanks for the reply. I really haven't poked at it much. I had a feeling that I didn't want to mess with the 'pump' when it didn't come right once the screws were removed. I'll still try to swap it, but I'll be very careful. How much MPG can I expect, do you think, using a 5.0 EFI, this 91 AOD, and a 3.0 rear gear? Thanks again for the reply. I always read your posts, find them helpful for knowlege at the very least. Gary in NC > Sounds like you are referring to the pump.... probably not something you'd > want to remove by accident. Hopefully, neither the O-ring nor the gasket [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> Gary In all honesty, I'm the wrong guy to ask about fuel mileage.... I just pick what it is I want to drive and pay what it takes at the gas pumps.... Fuel mileage is a non-issue for me.... get's in the way of the fun part.... 8^) > Thanks for the reply. I really haven't poked at it much. I had a feeling > that I didn't want to mess with the 'pump' when it didn't come right once [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gary in NC True. This definitely won't be my commuter car, but before this swap the car was 289 plus a C-4, wondering how it would be vs 17 mpg at best. > In all honesty, I'm the wrong guy to ask about fuel mileage.... I just > pick [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >> Gary in NC > True. This definitely won't be my commuter car, but before this swap the > car was 289 plus a C-4, wondering how it would be vs 17 mpg at best. I'd put more gear in the rear. You're gonna lug on the interstate in overdrive. I'd run "at least" 3.50's. Put you closer to the powerband in OD. Your engine will barely be idling in OD at 65 with 3.00's.  SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >> True. This definitely won't be my commuter car, but before this >> swap the car was 289 plus a C-4, wondering how it would be vs 17 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > powerband in OD. Your engine will barely be idling in OD at 65 with > 3.00's. True. My LX AOD came stock with 3.27s and it was lame at best. 3.73s are just wonderful for it. > True. My LX AOD came stock with 3.27s and it was lame at best. 3.73s > are just wonderful for it. Plus I know of some who get BETTER MGP with 3:73's than 3:27's with an AOD. I know I've experienced something like this between my Ranchero and Mustang. The Mustang has a 351/3:70 combo and the Ranchero has a 302/3:00 combo, yet I actually get better MGP on the street with the Mustang. It's because the Mustang accelerates effortlessly, while the Ranchero has to work to get going, therefore using much more gas. However, the Ranchero blows the Mustang out of the water on long highway trips. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >> True. My LX AOD came stock with 3.27s and it was lame at best. >> 3.73s are just wonderful for it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > using much more gas. However, the Ranchero blows the Mustang out of > the water on long highway trips. If I stay out of the pedal and keep it below 80mph on the highway, I'll get 20mpg easy. Only thing is that it's tuned for 93 octane, which is now $2.38/gal. > Only thing is that it's tuned for 93 octane, > which is now $2.38/gal. Huh. That's what I'm paying for regular 87. Signature/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \ | My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang | | RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm | \ Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure reply information / Garth Almgren <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in news:3ghjvlFcfcobU2 @individual.net: >> Only thing is that it's tuned for 93 octane, >> which is now $2.38/gal. > > Huh. That's what I'm paying for regular 87. Where are you Garth? > Garth Almgren <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in news:3ghjvlFcfcobU2 > @individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where are you Garth? About 20 miles north of Seattle. I should mention that the 76 station nearest my house is one of the more expensive outside of downtown Seattle. At least one of the 76 stations I pass during my commute is down to $2.26 for regular. The various mini-marts are all around $2.20 or so. Signature/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \ | My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang | | RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm | \ Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure reply information / That's sad. When I lived in the SeaTac area, gas was under 50 cents a gallon, and they were having price wars, so you actually paid 24-35 cents, and still got your plaid stamps, glassware, and full service..... I expect to be visiting up there to participate with Northwest Mustang Club activities once in a while. >> Garth Almgren <nospam@v6stang.com> wrote in news:3ghjvlFcfcobU2 >> @individual.net: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >down to $2.26 for regular. The various mini-marts are all around $2.20 >or so. Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 >> Only thing is that it's tuned for 93 octane, which is now $2.38/gal. > > Huh. That's what I'm paying for regular 87. Regular 85 octane here in Denver just dipped below $2.00 for the first time in about 6 months. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>>Only thing is that it's tuned for 93 octane, which is now $2.38/gal. >> >>Huh. That's what I'm paying for regular 87. > > Regular 85 octane here in Denver just dipped below $2.00 for the first time > in about 6 months. 85? Is that a high elevation thing? Signature/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \ | My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang | | RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm | \ Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure reply information / >> Regular 85 octane here in Denver just dipped below $2.00 for the first >> time in about 6 months. > > 85? Is that a high elevation thing? Yep, in Collaraddy we have 85, 87 and 91. But we usually pay more than the national average during winter and less than the national average during summer (For LOWER octane ratings). The altitude up here is like running about 1 point less compression. So my 10:1 302 is "seeing" 9:1. Another reason I'm considering supercharging my 9.5:1 400 stroker 351W. It "sees" 8.5:1 and should take well to forced induction, as long as I stay near the mountains, lol! It's already at 320HP and 380Tq at altitude, imagine what 7-10lbs of boost would do!?!?! Put some GT-40X heads on there and a Paxton and I'm in the 400's. The biggest problem with the altitude is there just flat out isn't enough oxygen. My stroker loses ~100hp and tq to what it'd make at sea level. SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.