302/C6 Transmission Adapter Plate

Discussion in 'Technical' started by danzig, Apr 27, 2002.

  1. danzig

    danzig New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am installing a C-6 transmission on my 302. Do I need an adapter plate for my flex plate? Because my torque converter keeps getting pulled out by flex plate and eating the hell out of my front seal.

    Thanks

    -74 Maverick
    302 w/ 289 heads
     
  2. Old Guy

    Old Guy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just so we all get the info right, would you please tell us what the converter size and bolt pattern is. Also the number of teeth on the flex plate and any other details on what you had in there and what you have chgd. for the C6. This will help in determining your problem. Thanks
     
  3. K. Merring

    K. Merring Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Easton,Pa.
    Vehicle:
    73 Comet GT
    danzig, if your wanting to put a C6 into a Mav., it will be a hassle. Thet don't fit the transmission tunnel and firewall.
     
  4. littleredtoy

    littleredtoy Seth

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    North Carolina, Triangle Area
    Vehicle:
    '74 Comet GT
    Why a c-6

    There is such a thing as a 'small block' C-6. I have seen them. I even owned one, didn't install it. From what I understand they were installed in some trucks, station wagons and Rancheros etc. behind 302's and maybe something else, I am not sure.

    Most of the C-6's were mated to the larger FE and 385 series engines. FE's were the 332,352,360,361,390,391,406,410,427 and 428 engines. The 385 family was the 429, 429 Boss (no A/T according to my manuals) and 460 big blocks.

    According to 'Mustang Monthly', (July 2000-page 22), the C-6 eats over 30 hp before sending the motion to the rear wheels.
    Another transmission you may consider, I would recomend a well built C-4 or an AOD swap, is the FMX. Most mechanics hate it. It is said to be quirky, heavy (cast iron case vs. aluminum in C-4/C-6) and expensive to work on. I have however seen them behind several 351W's and some Clevelands I believe. They seemded to take some abuse.

    By the way, the C-6 debuted in the 1967 Mustang. The C-4 name stands for the year it was designed. (c=1960's, 6=last number in the decade code).:D
     
  5. littleredtoy

    littleredtoy Seth

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,039
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    146
    Location:
    North Carolina, Triangle Area
    Vehicle:
    '74 Comet GT
    Correction: ...the name C-6...

    N/M
     
  6. mark_b

    mark_b Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    western PA.
    Vehicle:
    73 all original 302 2d red blk int. 72,302.2dr. green and 71 200ci. 2d green
    C-6 transmissions can be found in 1970's ford vans with 351w in them.

    I converted from the stock AOD in my 85 E-150 van to a c-6 for durability and towing purposes.

    Just a little info for the data base :)

    Mark
     
  7. igo1090

    igo1090 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    catonsville, md
    Vehicle:
    75 maverick, 93 tbird tube car
    sounds like you have the wrong flexplate. converter should only pull forward a min of .100 inch and a maximum of .185 ( 3/16ths) inch. snout of converter must go into crank at least 1/8 inch if you decide to use washers to shim your setup (this can be a bitch to check on a ford trans unless you cut the bottom of the bellhousing away). best option is get the correct flexplate in it.

    why use a c-6? they eat horsepower and weigh a lot more than a c-4. there should be no durability problems with a c-4. a friend of mine has a well-built one behind a 460 9 second car with no problems. a mildly prepped c-4 will hold up well behind most 302s.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2004
  8. mark_b

    mark_b Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    western PA.
    Vehicle:
    73 all original 302 2d red blk int. 72,302.2dr. green and 71 200ci. 2d green
    What is the horse power loss comparision from the C-4 to the
    C-6?

    Mark
     
  9. igo1090

    igo1090 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    catonsville, md
    Vehicle:
    75 maverick, 93 tbird tube car
    an old article i have says c6 eats 50 hp and c4 25hp. there is also a weight penalty for using the c6. the bottom line is that a car will be quicker with a c4 than a c6. if doing a lot of towing or running a heavy car/truck, then c6 is worth it for the durability. i know guys running 9 second big block cars having no problem with c4s as far as durability and performance.
     
  10. mavman

    mavman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Vehicle:
    '75 Maverick, '03 super duty, '04 Mustang Vee-six!
    There is another website that I have frequented that has a member that runs a 4000+ lb Galaxie with a 557 stroker deep in the 9's with a C4. They're plenty strong, no need for a C6 in a relatively light maverick. Not to say a C6 is a crappy trans...they're darned near bulletproof (unless you're my brother), just heavy and they eat up a LOT of HP. Expect .3-.4 sec. ET improvement switching to a C4.
     

Share This Page