I building a 428+ FE Ford for my ride and need to purchase a “ built” C-6 and an approximately a26/28 hundred stall convertor. I need the transmission shift points set at about 5000 rpm and heavy duty clutches and stuff. Any recommendations? Bones
dynamic in branford ct is the c4/c6 go to - they did my fe c6 and they'll be doing a c4 for my mustang soon
If you care at all about fuel economy and can afford it, use a suitably-beefed-up C4. The C6 is one tough trans, but it has over double the internal drag of a C4. It was almost single-handedly responsible for Ford's abysmal big-block fuel mileage in the late 60s and 70s, and why any Ford truck with an C6 automatic got lousy mileage.
yep - dynamic has a beefed c4 that guys are using in 1000+hp turbo mustangs - the bells are available for the fe - cores are easier/cheaper too - c4 would be my choice too if I had it to do over again with the fe
In a previous post, someone recommended a transmission place in Arizona. I looked on their web site and was impressed, but now can’t find it. Does anyone know of this transmission rebuilder? Bones
I thought the one I had got lousy mileage because of the 400. But maybe they add up.... I wonder why the 727 doesn't have this reputation? They're pretty similar inside. C6 has a clutch instead of a band for low/reverse.
I ran across this a few years ago... HP loss in popular automatics.. Powerglide_____18 hp TH-350________36 hp TH-400________44 hp Ford_C-6______55-60 hp Ford_C-4______28 hp Ford_FMX______25 hp Chrysler_A904__25 hp Chrysler_727___45 hp A bit dated now as there's little mention of the current OD offerings which I assume will have better numbers due to lock-up capabilities. But an eye-opener nonetheless. It does explain why the Powerglide has achieved so much popularity in drag racing and why so much effort has been expended to correct it's shortcomings. It also explains why Ford developed the AOD off the FMX platform. This chart wasn't found where I first found it, but there's some discussion about the C6 here... https://www.460ford.com/threads/transmission-specifications-including-parasitic-hp-losses.118570/ But basically the loss can be explained by the size/weight of the internal components. The C6 really is a heavy-duty piece, generally not needing much done to it for severe-duty applications. When Ohio George Montgomery converted to a blown SOHC, Ford had no problem furnishing a C6 able to withstand the power.
You can build (or have built) a C6 that is fully rollerized. Power consumption on them is said to be substantially lower.
If the c6 caused poor fuel mileage, the lost mechanical energy was changed to thermal energy. I don't remember the C6 over heating or dissipating an excessive amount of heat through the cooler lines into the radiator. My 1968 460 Lincoln powered 3/4 ton Ford pu did ok. Greg
Horsepower loss in an automatic cannot be stated by just saying x number of horse power is lost in a transmission. It has to include input and out put speed also. I am concerned about horsepower consumption, but not fuel mileage, that much as this is just an occasional driver! Bones
I'm always highly suspicious of info like this, because we have no idea what the test conditions were. What was the load on each transmission? In what gear? I know it doesn't take 44 hp to creep along at 2 mph with a TH400....
It would interesting to run your 428 on a engine dyno then run on a chassis dyno to get some real numbers. 60 hp does seem on the high side.
Well, my 428 is actually going to be a 462, with 3X2s with stock long tube headers, small smooth idle torque cam, ported iron heads, limited to around 5000rpm. So it’s not really going to be a horsepower monster, just hope it’s going to have a good” seat of the pants” feel, with a lot of torque. Bones
I have no doubt that power loss varies widely depending on load and speed. I can only assume that the numbers given were under WOT conditions and/or heavy loads. But the fact remains that every one of the listed trans is no longer produced for fuel economy reasons and when the OEMs did this they just didn't stick an OD on their existing trans but did fairly major redesigns with a stress on reducing power losses. Anyone who has owned a late '60s or newer Ford truck with a C6 knows that fuel economy was never their strong suit. Even with smaller motors, mileage rarely got above 15 mpg; 10-12 was more typical, even lower for some combos. The last one I owned (390 4V) was between 8-10, maybe 12 on the freeway. For contrast, a '68 I owned with the 360 and three-on-the-tree consistently knocked down 20+ mpg in the rural driving I did, and yes, I was accused of lying more than once. The PO told me it got this mileage and I figured he was lying. But he turned out to be truthful much to my surprise. The otherwise-identical C6 versions were usually about half that...
Ford was still using the C6 behind the 300 in the mid 80s...interesting results, here. Their bigger V8 engines really sucked gas.
Powerglide_____18 hp TH-350________36 hp TH-400________44 hp Ford_C-6______55-60 hp Ford_C-4______28 hp Ford_FMX______25 hp Chrysler_A904__25 hp Chrysler_727___45 hp This seems wrong the guts of a fmx can almost be swaped with a c6
FMX and C-6 have nothing in common. C-6 and E4OD have basically the same geartrain. I used to use E4OD planets in a C-6 to change the ratio. FMX geartrain is more like a AOD. Raveneau planet set. Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Ford Motors ports used to offer a kit to back half an E4OD low and second gear ratios. It also came with Torrington bearings and was supposed to improve gear ratios and reduce internal friction by about 25%. The kits used off the shelf E4OD parts. I would assume that any large trans shop or parts supplier could handle the needed.
The automatics generally had taller rear gears than the stick shift vehicles. The old 352 fords had crusomatics and 300 rear gears, Real dogs in a drag race . However they could hide the speedometer needle on the top end. Bones just oughta put a stick in the vehicle.
Old Wolf , going with the auto, because I’m tired of shifting and the automatics are easier on the drivetrain, and it will automaticity shift at a predetermined point, therefore keeping me from blowing up my once in a lifetime ( for me) engine. Plus my car is set up for an automatic. As I age I seem to take the easier street! Lol Bones
I'm not sure that is the only reason, they also got lousy mileage with an MX transmission. The FE engine wasn't really known for fuel economy. Although, I did have a 65 T-Bird that would get 18 mpg on highway. Of the many FE powered cars I owned, that was about the best.