No, I have to disagree - respectfully.

There is no "bell housing" or "hogs head" at all. I mean there are but those are not the correct names for the parts on these trucks. There are two parts that make up what we call the one part bell housings that were used on larger models and later vehicles. One might argue that those terms are "understood." Well, apparently not so.

The proper Ford nomenclature for these parts is very clear, and I think when we use names for the parts other than the correct nomenclature (like hogs head), that is what generates confusion.

For the two pieces that connect the transmission to the engine, the forward piece that bolts to the engine is the 6392 "Flywheel Housing Assembly" as documented in the 48-52 Ford Truck Chasis Parts Catalog P-235. The single piece "Bell Housings" we often refer to and that were used on the Extra Heavy Duty trucks during this period were also 6392 "Flywheel Housing Assemblies" per the same page/catalog.

The piece that is attached to or cast onto the transmission is the 7501 "Clutch Housing" as documented in the 48-52 Ford Truck Chasis Parts Catalog P-325 and "Clutch Cover" as documented on page 141 of the shop manual. Interestingly enough, Ford interchanged the terms "Clutch Housing" and "Clutch Cover" regularly. In the parts Catalog its a "Clutch Cover." In the Shop Manual, it's called a "Clutch Housing" (ref the quotes in post 54 above).

Call it a Greecian pig if you like but the proper parts names, in accordance with the manufacturers nomenclature, are "Flywheel Housing" and "Clutch Housing/Cover."

And the "Clutch Housing/Cover" is the piece in the back - attached to the transmission - not the piece in the front attached to the engine.

I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm just trying to document this discussion correctly for future use - it's a peach!

 

at least you didn't quote wiki

as far as the terms you're stating that should be used - you and numberdummy will be quite at home with them - those that have been working on them will call them by the terms we're used to

 

I just compared the two lower gear sets, the one in my original transmission had the individual needle bearings, the one from my neighbor's transmission has the caged bearings. The outside dimensions look the same but the inner holes are different. The one with the caged bearings had a noticeably larger diameter. Also, the center spacer tube is shorter because the caged bearing are longer. It looks like the overall parts are interchangeable.

 

Count each gear's teeth, lots of variations!

So are you saying the cluster shaft (7111) is the same OD? It needs to be or the holes in the case would have to be re-done.

 

I'm at it again, this time I trying to get this piece of cr** back together. The main problem is the snap ring holding the front bearing onto the main shaft. I can't get the damn thing off so I can insert the front half of the main shaft in to meet the rear half. I've tried Evey snap ring pliers I have. I couldn't it off so I tried my 3 lb insertion tool (BFH) to press the whole front half assembly into the front of the case and I got it past the front gear on the lower set of gears but then there's not enough room to mate the two parts of the main shaft together. I think I also took out a synchronizer tooth. Is these a special snap ring pliers I should use?!!

It will be a miracle if this thing will work if I ever do get it together. I've been told by quite a few people that these transmissions are easy to take apart and put back together, that is getting extremely hard for me to believe. Unfortunately, none of these experts are near me.

 

And that's fine Dick.

Unfortunately though, not everyone had the good fortune to grow up around the garage where you learned these terms, or in their garage they may have called the same parts something different. Many of us who have done a substantial amount of work on our vehicles for many years learned a different way - to call the parts by their right name.

As long as the experience of those you deal with lends to an understanding of what you are talking about, then there won't be any problem communicating.

But when one is answering questions for other people and trying to explain a process or procedure to them, we can't assume that they are familiar with or understand your terminology.

So if all else fails, in order to communicate with the other people who exist in this world beside just you, using the standardized nomenclature the manufacturer designated, leaves no room for mistakes when looking up items, trying to find parts - or the kinds of mistakes/misunderstandings we have seen on this thread. 'k?

 

I feel you pain and frustration. Just remember that having been damaged may have warped or "stuck" some stuff - making it more difficult to work with.

Didn't you say your neighbor rebuilds the transmissions - the one who had the gear? Maybe if you were to ask him to come by for a visit and you could show him what you have done, he could offer some wisdom, he's close, and he's not feeling the frustration whip!

 

Well, we got it together, how good I won't know until I pop the clutch and take the panel for a spin. We, my youngest son and me, were able to get the snap ring off the bearing from the part from my neighbor's tranny. This one also had a slightly better looking gears also. We fought with the original one for at least an hour but got the one off the other piece in about five minutes, I wonder why/

Julie, I would have asked my neighbor but he's on a slightly different schedule. By the time I get off work he's eating supper and then getting ready for bed. He works early in the morning so his nights are earlier than mine.

My dad could take these old standard transmissions apart and put them together in his sleep, unfortunately, he's been gone almost 20 years. When I used to hang around with him at his garage when I was a kid, I stood next to him and learned a lot. I could rebuild starters, generators and carburetors with the best of them thanks to him. By the time I was able to help him out though automatic transmissions were the norm and he never worked on them. I've been all over my trucks for the last 30 years but have never had to go into the transmissions other than to change the clutches, never the internals.

Well, tomorrow night we'll be popping the tranny into the truck and we'll find out how we did. If it doesn't go rattle, rattle, thunder, boom, boom, boom we'll know we did OK. I'll have my trailer hooked up and waiting on standby.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the help and advice. It's been hectic here, not with just the truck but other pressures from work and other life problems. Nothing major, just stressful. I'll be back tomorrow night and let you all know how it turned out.

 

BTW, tonight as we're working on the transmission, my youngest son and me, I hold up the two gears first/reverse gears for comparison and show them to my son. I tell him the only way that the gear could have gotten chewed up like that was if someone constantly tried to shift into first without coming to a complete stop and since the first 2-3 I drove it I never had a problem with it and it only developed after he drove it last year I thought I could see a connection. He just kind of gave me a sheepish smile and said, "Maybe". I told him if I have to go through this aggrevation again it's going to cost him new gears, an more. I made him drive down to the gas station and buy me a cold soda.

 

Did you leave the cluster gear dropped while inserting the front gear/input shaft? It should slide right in. They did indeed use some very, very heavy clips on the front and rear shafts. And isn't it lovely how they tapered the ends opposite of what you'd want to get a hook under the end??? I wondered if the original end had broken off mine, I couldn't believe they'd taper it that way.

 

Yeah, the clips they used sure were beasts. I couldn't get that front clip off no matter what we tried. I have the best C clip tool I could find, along with other cheaper ones and numerous other tools the could be use, but I suppose Snap-On or one of the other auto tool suppliers would have a lot better one. The clip on the other transmission came of fairly easy but it took two people. Knowing how Ford like to operate they probably had a special tool you could buy from them if you were a Ford service tech. Usually if they did have a special tool they would list it in the manual with a part number, I didn't see anything. I wonder if there is an official name for those clip other than C clip, I know I came up with a few tried and true one tonight.

 

Bob, I'm packing my spare transmission as we speak and it'll be on way to your house tomorrow for a rebuild.

 

Ilya, I'll be waiting with my hammer

 

Post edited due to the influence of Ambien - the wonderful night time sleep aid

Jules - the pic of the tranny parts and cases are wrong in another way - I have a (51-52) light duty side loader side shifter with the half cast bell
(Removed: not sure what I was going for)

 

I was just going to shake my head and walk away from this but I can't. I make my living with communication skills and helping people understand what "standardized nomenclature" means in the real world where most folks live. The "books" were written by men and women who occasionally have an off day. I only have to point to the supplemental shop manuals as proof that available printed material is good to a point, but not the last word on a subject. Everybody uses the Green Bible because it's the MOST accurate - but even it is not infallible.

When "standardized nomenclature" doesn't get the job done (and that's frequently) the responsibility falls on those with practical, real world experience to help them understand. That's what this forum is all about. So I'm glad some of you have the "books" but I won't back down. Your books only go so far when it comes teaching and training (communicating ideas). If we refuse to accept that, then we become an example of what's wrong with the educational system in the US today.

That forward portion of a standard duty 3 spd transmission in NO way houses the clutch mechanism or covers it. Calling it that just clouds the issue and makes it more difficult to understand. This thread went 3 pages because "standard nomenclature" is screwed up in this instance.

Rant over, I'm done.