Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T89/T85 Rebuild

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Transmission / Overdrive: T89/T85 Rebuild

    I just rebuilt (made new again) the 3 spd/OD (T89) in the 56J. I installed it NOS about 35 years and 170,000 miles ago. It was manufactured late 1963, so was on the shelf about 23 years before I got it from Lester Schmidt. It's always been trouble free, but about 5000 miles ago developed a light growl, under load in 2nd gear, and under decel in 3rd; in or out of OD had no effect, so I was pretty sure the problem was within the main case. Upon tear down, the main case rear bearing (middle of 3 bearings) was obviously on its way out; the front (a.k.a. input shaft) bearing, and tail shaft (rear most) bearing were both OK. Over the decades, I'd occasionally grind the (unsynchronized) 1st gear, not often, but accumulation took its toll. So the cluster gear's 1st gear cog was chewed up, and its metal fragments were on the case floor. The growl's source was the bearing, but it is adjacent to the 1st gear cog, so my theory is some of the metal fragments got in the bearing at some point. To avoid this in future, I installed magnetic drain plugs.

    The transmission is designed with only about .005" clearance between the OD ring gear and OD case. When any of the 3 bearing begin to fail, the ring gear begins making light contact with the case, which amplifies the noise. Glad I took action sooner than later, which resulted in minimal damage.

    Several internal components interchange with early T10: synchronizer rings; front & rear case bearings; cluster gear shaft & bearings; input shaft-to-main shaft junction needle bearings, so I bought those all in a T10 kit. I replaced all three shaft bearings, the cluster gear and it's shaft (NOS on eBay) and bearings, and the 1st/reverse slider gear (also NOS off eBay). The synchronizers were as new, so I left them alone. Of course I replaced all seals and gaskets; fabricated the gaskets, and measured each seal and bought them off eBay, by size. I even found a rear yoke seal (National #4889) to replace the long NLA rawhide seal.

    Compared to T86, the T89/T85 is not easy to work on, and it does not help that some procedures in the Stude Shop Manual are flat out wrong. It probably took me 15 hours' labor, but I could probably do another in half that time. The real PITA was removal and reinstallation in the 56J. Due to a 50 cent clutch T/O bearing retractor spring, it is necessary to remove and reinstall the transmission with bell housing attached. But I fabricated a different retractor spring (copied off the GM classic car guys), so I could reinstall them separately, which helped tremendously.

    For oil, I initially used Royal Purple GL-5, 75W90, which says on the label it is safe for yellow metals. It was available at FLAPS, and I thought I was out of Red Line MT-90. Then I drove the car 50 miles, and thought I'd done something wrong in the rebuild; shifting was tight, even the OD upshift was more pronounced. I then found two quarts of MT-90 I'd forgotten I had. So drained Royal Purple and replaced it with MT-90. The transmission was instantly transformed back to its old self, with smooth and easy shifts.

    I am mainly posting this thread mainly for our archives, and titled it T89/T85 because, AFAIK, all rebuild procedures are identical, though some gears, and rear main shaft are different.
    Last edited by JoeHall; 05-26-2022, 02:01 PM.

  • #2
    Thanks Joe for that quite detailed description of your T-89 Truck O.D. Trans. situation.
    Those are the facts we all need to maintain and repair these "Top of the Line" Borg Warner Manual Transmissions.

    I wonder if National 4889 is a New find or one that others have also found?
    I thought this might be the Thin one that should take (2) to fill the opening where a Dual Seal Lip, Seal originally was.

    This is the very hard to find Overdrive Case Rear Seal, different than Standard, No O.D. Seals.
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by StudeRich View Post
      Thanks Joe for that quite detailed description of your T-89 Truck O.D. Trans. situation.
      Those are the facts we all need to maintain and repair these "Top of the Line" Borg Warner Manual Transmissions.

      I wonder if National 4889 is a New find or one that others have also found?
      I thought this might be the Thin one that should take (2) to fill the opening where a Dual Seal Lip, Seal originally was.

      This is the very hard to find Overdrive Case Rear Seal, different than Standard, No O.D. Seals.
      Rich,
      The T89 was also optional in 59-63 Stude Taxis and Police cars, and also used in some Jeeps for several years. The NOS cluster gear and 1st/reverse slider gear I found on eBay were sold by a guy who deals in NOS Jeep parts.

      The 4889 seal is single lip, and about .475" thick. I have been using similar seals in T85/T89s for decades, but never found anything to fit exactly, so had to be creative. I even used a seal inside a seal, to achieve proper ID and OD sizing. I installed two of them in two different transmissions, and the second one is still going strong in the 62GT, about 60,000 miles now. I also found a metric seal during the above rebuild but the ID was a bit tighter than I was comfortable with, so I chose the 4889.

      Lester Schmidt told me he wore out half dozen 259/289 motors in his 'million mile Transfer', but said the original T89 never needed anything more than a couple of input shaft bearings. He blamed himself, since he admitted he never bothered to dial in the bell housing when he'd swap motors. Obviously, with the 56J, Packard motors and bell housings did not require realignment, since this is the third 352 motor this T89 has been behind.

      Comment


      • #4
        Sitting here looking at the OEM rear seal (15771 CR), it is .775" thick, so not enough room to double up the 4889 seal, but that's not needed anyway. I was thinking the inner lip of the OEM was rawhide, but it is only a felt material, similar to the timing gear cover seal on 259/289 motors. It fits snug enough to wear a slight groove in the yoke surface, but the beauty of the thinner 4889 seal is, being thinner, it allows up to 300" shift, fore or aft, to avoid riding on that groove. I have never heard of anyone else using a 4889 seal in this application, but surely I am not the first.

        Comment


        • #5
          ­­Here is what I filed about that back in 2012, YES it IS a match for "Joe's" current National # 4889 Tail Seal story:

          Neal in NM 06/10/2012 SDC Forum


          Just looked in my seal book and found a seal number that might work # 4889 Timken. The OD is 2.840" and calls for the housing bore to be 2.833" (72mm is 2.834). Neal
          ________________________________________
          Bo Markham 06/11/2012
          Joe,

          Depending on which T-85/89 transmission you are needing a seal for. The 56-57 passenger car and all trucks using the early transmission use the same 1540818 seal. 58-59 pass. changes to 1545164 seal. There are several possibilities available. The original seal is still available via Studebaker vendor(s). The original seal crosses to C/R 15771, or Nat’l. 473234. The later seal crosses to C/R 16744. NAPA shows these numbers cross to modern replacement seals. NAPA number 16719, 16871, the C/R 15771 number crosses too, but I have misplaced that number.
          Bo

          ????????
          ________________________________________
          Joe Hall 06/13/2012

          Looking at the specs, Timkin/National number 4889 looks like a dead ringer. I just ordered one off eBay for $5.72, with free shipping, in order to double check. Although, the two-to-make-one idea works well too, it's just a PITA to make. But the one I recently installed is leak free, as was the other one I installed several years ago. I will mark the 4889 when it gets here and lay it aside for possible future needs.
          ________________________________________
          Joe Hall 06/19/2012

          I just received the ebay National seal # 4889 in the mail. It is a modern, quality made seal, and when matched it up on a spare T-85, it looks like a perfect replacement. Though the yoke and old seal are removed from the spare T-85, I stopped just short of actually tapping the # 4889 seal into the recess. The ID fits the yoke perfectly, and the OD dimensions tell me it will tap right into place as well.
          Another positive is the
          Number 4889 is only about 1/2" thick, where the OEM was 1", since many of the T-85 yokes now-days suffer from surface damage in the area that mates with the seal. With this 1/2" thinner seal, a person can locate it 0" to .5" fore or aft in the recess, in order to line the seal lip up with the best surface area available on the yoke.
          If I ever need to replace another T-85 seal, this is the one I'll use.

          ________________________________________

          PackardV8 `06/19/2012

          I'd put two of them in then.
          Jack Vines


          PackardV8
          StudeRich
          Second Generation Stude Driver,
          Proud '54 Starliner Owner

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks Rich, I had long forgotten all the 2012 info. Wish I'd dug up in our archives for this recent T89 rebuild. Coulda saved myself a lotta time researching, only to re-discover what had already been discovered 10 years prior. You are adept at digging up the archives!
            Joe H

            Comment


            • #7
              Joe, as you did, I had a problem following the transmission rebuild procedures in the Passenger Car Shop Manual. I'm thinking what seems to be an error in the car Shop Manual instructions for rebuilding the T85 is maybe a result of the T89 having different gear sizes. Your thoughts?

              jack vines
              PackardV8

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
                Joe, as you did, I had a problem following the transmission rebuild procedures in the Passenger Car Shop Manual. I'm thinking what seems to be an error in the car Shop Manual instructions for rebuilding the T85 is maybe a result of the T89 having different gear sizes. Your thoughts?

                jack vines
                Too lazy to review the manual, so going from memory, the worst part is where it addresses cluster gear shaft removal. It says pull the main shaft rearward about 1/2", then cock the OD adapter sideways to provide clearance for the shaft's removal. But the main shaft will only come back about 3/16" before the 2nd/3rd gear synchronizer assembly jams against the 2nd gear cog on the cluster gear, so it is impossible to 'cock it sideways'. Pretty sure the same with T85, unless that cog has a MUCH smaller OD, since the synchronizer assembly is the same as T89. Once I figured out the only way possible was for the shaft to come out THROUGH the OD adapter, is was simple enough, but then figuring out the one spot of the OD adapter was another story. So I pretty much tossed the manual and followed instinct. But did take several pictures, at several stages, before disassembly of the next component. Those pics were most helpful in reassembly.

                Did you leave the ridiculous T/O bearing retractor spring in place? This is what I did: Click image for larger version

Name:	20220415_120239.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	82.2 KB
ID:	1945827 Click image for larger version

Name:	20220415_120410.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	51.3 KB
ID:	1945828

                Comment


                • #9
                  The GM classic car guys used to have the same problem as with 56J, and the above was a mod they came up with several years ago. So I bought one of the cheapest GM style T/O bearings available, and used its springs on the 56J's T/O bearing carrier. Just needed to drill a hole in each side of the carrier for the springs to anchor in.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Last T89 I rebuilt, I used a T10 cluster gear shaft purchased on Ebay. As with any aftermarket part, especially if made overseas, I gave it a pretty thorough inspection. It was not
                    properly heat treated and much softer than the original. Into the scrap hopper it went, and I found a NOS one. Buyer beware.

                    JT

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oilnsteel View Post
                      Last T89 I rebuilt, I used a T10 cluster gear shaft purchased on Ebay. As with any aftermarket part, especially if made overseas, I gave it a pretty thorough inspection. It was not
                      properly heat treated and much softer than the original. Into the scrap hopper it went, and I found a NOS one. Buyer beware.

                      JT
                      Yikes! The one I bought was advertised as 'new'. Never thought of it possibly being off shore. But it fit perfectly, and many times off shore stuff is close but no cigar. Will just keep my fingers crossed, since I really don't ever wanna have to re-do that transmission again. The old shaft one was OK, but I wanted to replace everything possible.

                      I noticed the input shaft-to main shaft junction needle bearings, that came in the T10 set were more barrel shaped, whereas the originals were conical on the ends. I had a spare set of NOS ones, so used those instead of the ones in the T10 kit. As mentioned above, the cluster gear and 1st / reverse slider gear were both NOS, from a Jeep guy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by oilnsteel View Post
                        Last T89 I rebuilt, I used a T10 cluster gear shaft purchased on Ebay. As with any aftermarket part, especially if made overseas, I gave it a pretty thorough inspection. It was not
                        properly heat treated and much softer than the original. Into the scrap hopper it went, and I found a NOS one. Buyer beware.

                        JT
                        UPDATE: You had me worried for awhile. Luckily I bought two of the 'new' T10 shafts. This morning, I compared hardness between the used/OEM shaft, and the spare new shaft. Using a sharp file in the edges, hardness is comparable. I trust the new ones.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Glad it worked out OK for you, Joe. It is well to trust but verify.

                          JT

                          Comment

                          Working...