T-18/d20

Does anyone know if there would be any problem using the D20 shift linkage setup that was utilized in the 71-74 J-10 in a CJ5?
I'm swapping from a T-14 to a T-18 and will have to lengthen my existing linkage in any case, maybe I can shorten a J-10/D20 linkage instead.
Any drawbacks even if it would work?
KSA

 

The U-shifter in the FSJs is kind of clunky compared to the inline shifter that a CJ would have. Otherwise I think you could make it work. The '72-73 Commando used the U-shifter, and it was available with the CR T-18. Might be better to lengthen the original shifter though...

 

The J-10 shifter looked more compact. But as you say the in line seems simpler. I have two types of CJ xfer case shifters in hand. One shift lever is flat the other is round both are very sloppy at this point. The bushings and ball in socket joints are badly worn. So maybe I should look into refurbishing one of those instead.
Thanks
KSA

 

AFAIK there's no difference in the shifter for the D20 between round and flat - both my '75s are/were round, and my '73 was flat.

Don't know that the bushings are available, but replacement ball joints certainly are. You might be able to find some ready-made bushings that you could turn down or drill out to fit. Check the Jeep suppliers like Turner, Walcks, etc. for what's available. Apparently Walck's has a lot of stuff that's not listed online, and if you call them they tell you what's available.

I'd skip the ball joints and use Heim joints instead. Much stronger and smoother. Check the MSC catalog www.mscdirect.com for Heim joints.

 

I agree with what's said above. I'd think you'd need to shorten the linkage for the J series pickup. You could also consider a twin stick set up. If interested do a search, it's been covered exhaustively. Nickmil

 

I went with the J series shifter since the CJ series was worn out. I simply removed the shift extensions which allowed me to slide the shift box toward the rear. Floor pan modifications were in order but after that it shifted great and was very reliable, unlike the sloppy CJ linkage I had.

Here is a link to picture of it --> Click here

 

I've looked at those twin sticks as an option. I wasn't sure of their quality.

Another quick question. Is the bell housing from a J10 with an I6 the same depth as a bell housing from a CJ5 with an I6?
KSA

 

The bells are the same. This is the T-14/15 to AMC bell that we are talking about, with a plate adapter. I don't know that the plate adapters are the same thickness though - maybe. The CR T-18 from a CJ-5 and the WR T-18 from the J-truck both use an adapter, but the input shafts are different (at the very least in tooth count, maybe in length).

 

Ok I'm going display ignorance here. When you mention tooth count do you mean the splines on the clutch end or the internal gear of the input shaft.

It "seems" the same 7/8 (1") bell housing adapter is used on the CJ5 and the J10.
KSA

 

Tooth count on the gear end. The CR (close ratio) and WR (wide ratio) T-18s have different gear ratios, determined by the tooth counts of the gears.

Could be the same - the parts book would show the same part number for both if they are the same.

 

The adapter and input shaft and front bearing retainer are way longer on the Pickup and Waggie T-18 compared to the CJ. The CJ had an adapter that was 7/8"-1" thick between the trans and bellhousing where the FSJ used one anywhere between 4"and 6" thick with corresponding bearing retainer and input shaft. That's why you have to swap in the shorter input shaft to a FS Jeep T-18, to shorten the assembly down so you can have a rear drive shaft. I know for sure there were two different thickness of adapters on the front of the FSJ's, there may be more, not sure. Jeep did this to get the tranny back far enough so the transmission shifter would clear the firewall and dash and have a long enough front driveshaft. Nickmil

 

The transmission I'm looking at is a T-18B so that's a close ratio right?

I have to laugh at my own inability to decipher what you wrote previously . As many times as I have paid attention to the close ratio and wide ratio versions of the T-18 the CR and WR totally escaped me the first time.
Thanks for all the info!!!

KSA

 

Look at this picture. It doesn't seem to have a long adapter. But as was said earlier if it's from a 71 J10 there should be a larger(longer) adapter. This setup "looks" proportionally to be the same length as the CJ T-18B/D20 setup I have now. Is there a visual non sequitur here?
KSA

 

Uh, no J-10 in '71. Should've been J2000, J3000, J4000 etc. That could be from the early J'series. The bellhousing looks suspicially like one for an AMC 327 Vigilante V-8. Hopefully Timgr or Jpflat2a will chime in here and help out. If it is from the 327 AMC then the input shaft may not work as the bellhousing depth could be wrong which means the input shaft would be wrong. Would have to measure them to see, but the IIRC the 327 bellhousing was a different depth than the later AMC bellhousings and the T-14-T-15 bellhousings. Do you have any more info as to what this came out, what motor, etc? If it is in fact a T-18 You could put in a Ford T-18 input and bearing retainer and adapt the front to bolt to an AMC, Ford, or GM motor or use that output shaft and rear adapter and put in a Ford T-18. That would give you the 6.32-1 wide ratio. I never go by the cast in T-18a, T-18b, etc as the guts can be swapped between the cases so it's really not accurate. Put it in first gear then rotate the input shaft until you get one rotation of the output shaft and count the number of turns of the input. 6 1/4 turns would be the wide ratio 6.32-1. 4 turns would be close ration 4-1. Or you can pull the shift top and count the teeth on the input. 17 teeth would be the 6.32-1, 23 teeth is the 4.03-1. Any other tooth count would indicate a T-98 which you really don't want, although the output shaft has good value. Nickmil

 

This is the description (cut down a bit)

"A USED BORG WARNER T-18-1B 4 SPEED TRANSMISSION AND A DANA TRANSFER CASE. BOTH ARE IN WORKING ORDER AND COMPLETE, ALL PARTS ARE FROM A 71 J-10 TRUCK.
BELLHOUSING FOR A STRAIGHT 6 IS BOLTED TO TRANS"

What do you think?

 

Have you purchased it yet? Depending on price I'd consider passing. If cheap enough you could use the output shaft if it is in fact a T-18 and the rear adapter and the transfer case. What motor are you trying to mount this to? That doesn't look like a 232/258 bellhousing to me. Could be from a 230 ohc-6 but would think it would be a T-98. Again, don't go by the info cast in the case as the T-98 guts will work in a T-18 case. The info has some discrepancy's here that makes me a little wary....
PM Jpflat2a or Timgr and ask them to look at the bellhousing and see what they think.
Nickmil

 

Not purchased yet, I'm still just looking. Wants $350.00. I'm getting a little suspicious regarding what this actually is. I'll probably pass on it.
Thanks for the insight.
KSA

 

As Nickmil mentioned above, the outer casting ID may not be a true reflection of the 1st gear ratio as mine read T18-1B but was truly the 6.32:1 wide ratio.

 

It might be ok, with the caution listed below.

Only the AMC V8 J-trucks and Wagons (FSJs) use the very long input shaft that Nick is thinking of. With that input shaft, you need the 5" long spacer between the bell and the transmission. It is entirely possible that the J-truck with the 258 uses the same adapter plate as the close-ratio CJ T-18 used from '72-76.

The 5" spacer from a V8 FSJ compensates for the shorter overall length of the V8 compared to the I6. Both types of engines are mounted in the same location in the FSJ engine bay. The V8 spacer places the shifter further back in the cabin, basically at the same place the I6 shifter will be with no or the thin spacer (my T-15 J-truck has no spacer at all, AFAICT).

The changeover year from the 232 to the 258 was 1970 as I recall. If the engine is a 258, it will have the 'unified' bell that fits all the AMC inline 6s and V8s. If it's a 232, it's a different pattern - the "Rambler" pattern, and the bell won't work - the pre-70 232 is different from the post-70 232. No telling what the stickout would be then... might be the same as the 258, might not. The bell kinda looks wrong to me too, deeper than the AMC bell, though I haven't seen one up close for a while - might be for the Rambler 232.

 

The thing that stands out the most to me regarding the bell housing is the apparent absence of the three ribs than you should be able to see on the side shown.

On the other hand, owner confirms that it was attached to a 258.

Think it's worth $350?
KSA