doubleclutchinweasel

Yeah, this PDF file is a little rough! My physical manual is far easier to read. If you have any specific sections you would like to enhance, let me know. Maybe I can take a picture of them and send it to you. I guess end play on the mainshaft makes sense. After all, there are several shafts in the center of that box (main input shaft, main mainshaft, aux input shaft, aux mainshaft). Might want little clearance between the ends of each one! Technically, I guess the front mainshaft is the rear input shaft. Sorry about that!

I tried to upload that manual to the WIKI section, but it is too big.

When I looked at the drawing this morning, it looks like it actually has an "END PLAY" spec on the MAINSHAFT and a "PRE-LOAD" spec on the COUNTERSHAFT. But, I have no personal experience with this transmission. So, don't take my word alone for it.

But, here's a teaser...

I sent you a PM. Contact me when you get it.

Uhhhhh....yeah.

I meant to look in one of my manuals, but forgot. Wait, I may have something here at work. Let me look and get back to you.

Exactly! They are meant to pull much lighter loads. Imagine a 400-500HP gas-burning High Performance Hemi V8 trying to pull 100,000 pounds? At 75mph? Not for long! The class 8 diesels are meant to last. Turning them up to max output can only shorten their life expectancy.

That kinda sounds like what I was saying on Jo-Jo's thread! Well put, Joe!

My '17 Ram 3500 had the 950 ft-lb version of the 6.7L Cummins. Plenty of power for pulling anything I'll ever hook to it. But, it does NOT have to move 80K+. It does NOT have to move that 80K+ for 600+ miles every day. It does NOT have to stop that 80K+ a dozen times an hour. I've had this discussion with some of the die-hard Ram guys a dozen times. It's not all about power, it's about longevity. I love my 6.7, bit even the old 250 horse 673 I drove would outlast it in a heavy truck! Jo-Jo, this is an interesting discussion. Like everybody, I seem to always want MORE POWER (argh, argh, argh). But, I also remember all too well the 180 horse Thermodynes slooooowly dragging those heavy weights up the hills. The 237 and 250 motors were noticeably better. A 300 or 350 was incredible. The 400 HP stuff just seemed like showing off! I guess it is just progress that newer stuff is stouter. I guess the comfort levels of the newer stuff are supposed to reduce driver fatigue. But, to me, a truck is SUPPOSED to be a little bit rough. But, that's probably just because that's how they were "back then". I'm sure my back would appreciate the improvements in the newer stuff. In any engine, turning up the power can reduce longevity. Everything in life is a bit of a trade-off. But, there is also usually an optimum point...where the lines cross. I mean, straining the guts out of a weaker engine can shorten its longevity, too. Just like putting too much power on it can. I guess, if we knew what that magic number was, we could just tune everything to that point and get the best compromise of power and longevity. Then we would go buy lottery tickets, because we would apparently have gifted insight into the netherworld! I am going to keep reading this one because EVERYBODY'S opinion on this is valid. They vary by experience and requirement.

It is, indeed, NASCAR hall of famer Bobby Labonte. Hippy wins a cookie!

Here is the link. Upload your picture there. Then copy the link they give you and paste it here. Seems like they offer a variety of links, depending on what you are going to do with the picture. So, you may have to experiment with the links to see which one works best on here. I THINK one of them says "for use on forums." https://postimages.org/

Clever approach!

The SMART tour (Southern Modified Auto Racing Teams) had a race at nearby Tri-County Speedway last weekend. I took one of the twin grandsons to Richard Childress Racing (RCR) museum earlier that day, and then spent the evening watching the locals and finally the Modifieds run. Here is a picture of the 13-year-old grandson posing with the eventual winner of the Modified race. Anybody recognize the driver? Hint: the driver is the little one!

I see a lot of folks who have been members for a long time, but who have never posted anything (or only a couple of posts). If you are one of those folks, even if you don't think you have anything to talk about, just tell us a good story! Or post a picture of something. You know we all love pictures! If nothing else, tell us who you are and what you are into. We don't care what it is. These guys can talk about almost any topic you can bring up. Tell us about your pets or your grandkids if you don't have anything else to talk about! LOL!

My '70 had the parking brake switch beside the parking brake valve and the service brake switch at the treadle valve.

You nailed it right there! As usual!

Incidentally (and WAY off topic!), isn't it interesting that the newer high-performance racing transmissions are dual-countershaft...ala RoadRanger? This one is a Liberty.

Good point, Geoff. The old "granny gear" boxes in pickups, buses, and medium-duty trucks often had an unsynchronized (sliding mesh) "LO" gear. Many were, as you mentioned, on the "reverse" fork. I drove quite a few of those. Our school buses all had "3-speed plus granny" boxes, but the reverse gear was on a different fork in those. Still probably driven off the 1st gear, though.

I was thinking along those lines. Water is supposed to weigh about 8.33 pounds per gallon (at room temperature of 70° F). If you have access to a scale, weigh it empty and full and see what the difference is. Even allowing for minor differences in the weight of the water (based on actual temperature) and errors in weighing it, it should be pretty easy to tell if it's 500 gallons or 1,000 gallons.

By the way, Gunny, sorry we kind of went off-track there! Didn't mean to hijack your thread! But, it happens sometimes on here! Squirrel! No offense meant to you either, Joe! I actually enjoy these discussions. Nobody around here (work) who can even join in on these kind of things!

https://www.mistertransmission.com/manual-transmission-constant-vs-sliding-mesh/#:~:text=The gears used in a,less wear on the gears More info... It adds the "synchro-mesh" box to the discussion.

E did have a 1-piece also, I think Brocky. Good catch!

"Constant Mesh" simply means that all the gears are constantly meshed. The alternative is a transmission in which gears actually slide in and out of mesh while shifting. Those are called "sliding mesh" boxes. Obviously, neither the Mack transmission in question nor the Muncie of which I posted a picture has gears which slide in and out of mesh while shifting. So, both are "constant mesh" gearboxes. Synchronization is irrelevant in whether or not a transmission has "constant mesh". The car transmission is a "synchronized constant mesh" and the Mack transmission is a "non-synchronized constant mesh". If you want to get super-technical, the "synchronized constant mesh" box can be called a "synchromesh" box, which is basically a contraction. But, make no mistake, these are ALL "constant mesh", by the very definition of the words. The gears ARE meshed...CONSTANTLY. If you choose to call it something else, that's fine with me! Hey, it's a free country! Go for it, my brother!

Interesting observation, FWD!