Learn me T-56

It would appear to be a M29 out of a 93 fbody

That would be the "omg it's weak" one according to the internet knowitalls

The same guys that claim an nv3500 will explode behind anything bigger than a 4.3 and a t5 wont hold up behind a weak tpi 350.

It's rated for 400ft pounds, not too bad. It will work perfect for what I need an it was free lol. I have personally driven a front mounted turbo fbody with over 600bobcat the tires and the t56 took every bit of it for a long time. I am not putting too much faith in those ratings. Thanks for all the help guys. Now I need to decide if I want a V8 S10 or a 3rd gen fbody....

berkeleying auto correct put bobcat in my post that's too funny to edit

Yeah i was being sarcastic, the knowitalls love to spew internet hearsay about how someone's uncle's buddy's brother blew up x behind a stock 350 back in the day then it becomes truth. FYI i have an nv3500 behind a 454.

That's awesome! Haha. I have always wanted a stick behind a big block, but that internet static tells me a BBC would shred my 6 speed.

Wonder how many bobcats my bike has?

There is likely a tag near the front that will have a code on it. Then go HERE to see what you have.

In almost all cases the same transmission with a lower 1st gear will be rated for less torque than one with a higher first gear.

Look at the Richmond Super T-10 - the version with a 2.43:1 first is rated at 375 ft.lb's, but the exact same transmission with a 2.88:1 first is rated at only 300 ft.lb's. Your M29 just happens to have a lower first gear (2.97:1) than the 94-96 boxes (2.66:1).

Now before I get chewed out by internet know-it-all's, later F-body T56's, Viper boxes, etc. had carbon synchro's and other upgrades which did increase their rated capacity. In fact the latest Magnum T56 is rated at 700 ft.lb's - but it costs $4 grand. Those early LT1 T56's are still fine transmissions and will do fine behind something like a grassroots vortec head SBC.

I'll echo what SEADave says. The torque ratings aren't absolute limits. They are partly CYA from the manufacturer. Since those early T56s were also behind LT1s that only made 325 lb-ft of torque, they didn't need to go nuts with giving it a higher torque rating and increasing their liability.

But the cases themselves are all the same with only minor differences in finish machining, so the torque rating has partly to do with end-loading that is inherent to all helical-cut gears.

The early T56 ratios are actually kinda nice if you think about it. The 2.66/.050 gear set really needs deep axle ratios. For example, one of my T56s is set to go in my Impala SS which came with a 4L60E and 3.08s. In order to keep a similar ratio spread and get a deep enough first I had to switch to 4.10s. (.70 x 3.08 = 2.156 final and .50 x 4.10 = 2.05 final). I'm actually going to slightly drop highway RPMs with a switch to 4.10s. The earlier boxes have ratios that are more likely to be friendly without altering the rear ratio.

SEADave wrote: In almost all cases the same transmission with a lower 1st gear will be rated for less torque than one with a higher first gear. Look at the Richmond Super T-10 - the version with a 2.43:1 first is rated at 375 ft.lb's, but the exact same transmission with a 2.88:1 first is rated at only 300 ft.lb's. Your M29 just happens to have a lower first gear (2.97:1) than the 94-96 boxes (2.66:1).

T5s are the same way. Only the V8 T5s with the 2.95 First are rated for 300 ft-lb. The Ford 3.15 (?) trans was also rated for 300ft-lb but they kind of weren't good at it. The 4.0:1 First transmissions that almost everything else got were only rated for 195 ft-lb.

And this is why, if you wanted a manual trans 3rd-gen F-body, your choices were Iron Duke, V6, or 305. GM wouldn't put the 350 in front of a T5.

Thanks for all the knowledge guys, this is the best automotive forum on the web