Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical C-6 transmission

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Boneyard51, Jul 5, 2020.

  1. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 6,442

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
    loudbang and Truckdoctor Andy like this.
  2. ididntdoit1960
    Joined: Dec 13, 2011
    Posts: 1,030

    ididntdoit1960
    Member
    from Western MA

    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
     
    loudbang and Boneyard51 like this.
  3. 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.
     
    Truckdoctor Andy and Boneyard51 like this.
  4. ididntdoit1960
    Joined: Dec 13, 2011
    Posts: 1,030

    ididntdoit1960
    Member
    from Western MA

    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
     
    loudbang and Boneyard51 like this.

  5. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 6,442

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
  6. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 55,942

    squirrel
    Member

    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.
     
    Boneyard51 likes this.
  7. saltflats
    Joined: Aug 14, 2007
    Posts: 12,594

    saltflats
    Member
    from Missouri

    Bones you getting lazy, takes longer to clean the parts than it does to rebuild one.
     
    Boneyard51 likes this.
  8. 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.
     
    Truckdoctor Andy likes this.
  9. tjm73
    Joined: Feb 17, 2006
    Posts: 3,484

    tjm73
    Member

    You can build (or have built) a C6 that is fully rollerized. Power consumption on them is said to be substantially lower.
     
    Boneyard51 and warhorseracing like this.
  10. speedshifter
    Joined: Mar 3, 2008
    Posts: 312

    speedshifter
    Member

    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
     
    squirrel likes this.
  11. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 6,442

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
  12. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 55,942

    squirrel
    Member

    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....
     
    sidevalve8ba likes this.
  13. RmK57
    Joined: Dec 31, 2008
    Posts: 2,659

    RmK57
    Member

    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.
     
    Boneyard51 likes this.
  14. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 6,442

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
    Old wolf and dirty old man like this.
  15. 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...
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2020
  16. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 55,942

    squirrel
    Member

    Ford was still using the C6 behind the 300 in the mid 80s...interesting results, here. Their bigger V8 engines really sucked gas.

    epa.jpg
     
    Old wolf likes this.
  17. doyoulikesleds
    Joined: Jul 12, 2014
    Posts: 306

    doyoulikesleds

    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
     
  18. Kevin Ardinger
    Joined: Aug 31, 2019
    Posts: 778

    Kevin Ardinger
    Member

    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
     
    deucemac likes this.
  19. BamaMav
    Joined: Jun 19, 2011
    Posts: 6,711

    BamaMav
    Member
    from Berry, AL

    I had a 84 4x4 F150 with a 351W and a C6, got about 12 mpg on a good day.
     
  20. deucemac
    Joined: Aug 31, 2008
    Posts: 1,483

    deucemac
    Member

    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.
     
    Boneyard51 likes this.
  21. 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.
     
    Boneyard51 and Truckdoctor Andy like this.
  22. Boneyard51
    Joined: Dec 10, 2017
    Posts: 6,442

    Boneyard51
    Member

    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
     
  23. jaracer
    Joined: Oct 4, 2008
    Posts: 2,419

    jaracer
    Member

    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.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.