AOD 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.

"gcroix" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>

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


"Jim Warman" > wrote in message
news:x0qoe.41903$9A2.12442@edtnps89...
> 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.
>
> "gcroix" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

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^)


"gcroix" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>

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.


"Jim Warman" > wrote in message
news:vlroe.26057$HI.19288@edtnps84...
> 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^)
>
>
> "gcroix" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

"gcroix" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"66 6F HCS" > wrote in
:

>
> "gcroix" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.

True. My LX AOD came stock with 3.27s and it was lame at best. 3.73s
are just wonderful for it.

"Joe" > wrote
> 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.
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"66 6F HCS" > wrote in
:

>
> "Joe" > wrote
>> 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.

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.

Around 6/5/2005 5:17 PM, Joe wrote:

> 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.


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /