Anyone have a C4 in a 65-78? I need your help....
Posted: March 17, 2008, 11:23 pm
OK, as some of you perhaps know, I am switching over to a C4 in my 65.
Today my father helped me put it in. Good thing, as I would have never gotten it by myself and even then I think we kind of shoehorned it in.
The C4 I got was from a mustang with a 302. It has the large housing, flywheel (164 tooth) and 12" torque convertor. It also has the long tailshaft. Looks like a "conehead". It is a case fill transmission -- early C4's were panfill, but everything I have read says that casefill trannies are fine, so long as you have the right bell (which I have)
The C4 in 65 would have been a panfill.
The 65 shop manual, as well as chiltons makes installation/removal sound pretty easy. They didn't mention that it would hang up so bad on the firewall and mid crossmember that I needed to remove the tailhousing AND even then, still pry the bellhousing over the crossmember with brute force.....
We got it in. It was a royal bugger..... Even with the tailhousing off, the output shaft hits on the middle cab cross member and keeps you from tipping the tranny forward. This in turn means the bottom of the bell catches on the middle cross member and the top of the bell hits the firewall right forward of the hump cutout.
So my question. Can it be that C4 trannies in trucks ALL got the short tailhousing? I have seen pictures of them, and that is what is shown in my manual in ONE picture, though in another picture, it shows the long tailhousing (like from a car).
With a short tailhousing, I think this would have went in just as described in the manual.
If it is true that trucks got short tailhousings, then I can tell you now, there is a REALLY GOOD REASON TO STICK WITH THAT DECISION BY FOMOCO!!!!!!!!!!
Today my father helped me put it in. Good thing, as I would have never gotten it by myself and even then I think we kind of shoehorned it in.
The C4 I got was from a mustang with a 302. It has the large housing, flywheel (164 tooth) and 12" torque convertor. It also has the long tailshaft. Looks like a "conehead". It is a case fill transmission -- early C4's were panfill, but everything I have read says that casefill trannies are fine, so long as you have the right bell (which I have)
The C4 in 65 would have been a panfill.
The 65 shop manual, as well as chiltons makes installation/removal sound pretty easy. They didn't mention that it would hang up so bad on the firewall and mid crossmember that I needed to remove the tailhousing AND even then, still pry the bellhousing over the crossmember with brute force.....
We got it in. It was a royal bugger..... Even with the tailhousing off, the output shaft hits on the middle cab cross member and keeps you from tipping the tranny forward. This in turn means the bottom of the bell catches on the middle cross member and the top of the bell hits the firewall right forward of the hump cutout.
So my question. Can it be that C4 trannies in trucks ALL got the short tailhousing? I have seen pictures of them, and that is what is shown in my manual in ONE picture, though in another picture, it shows the long tailhousing (like from a car).
With a short tailhousing, I think this would have went in just as described in the manual.
If it is true that trucks got short tailhousings, then I can tell you now, there is a REALLY GOOD REASON TO STICK WITH THAT DECISION BY FOMOCO!!!!!!!!!!