Carter did make 2-stage rods, Chrysler used them, particularly on their AVS carbs. The piston has an extra spring at the top, the cover is domed instead of flat to allow it to come up further, and (this is the game changer) the main jets are a special taller design so instead of sitting flush with the floor of the bowl, they stick up about 1/8". This allowed Carter to use the same length rod and not change the bowl casting.

 

So that's where I've seen them! Sitting 20' away under the hood of the Bee. To tell the truth, it has been too long since I worked on that thing. But, it has the AVS, so I'll check it out - once I move the boat out of the way. Tnx.

 

On the basis of "no play and all work makes Jack a dull boy", I took a break from working on the shop today and "played" with Rusty for a bit. Actually, it turned into work 'cause the nice people that designed the A/C bracket on these 351M's left no room to get to the distributor's hold-down bolt. And that's even though I have one of those dog-legged distributor wrenches - 1/2 of which fell down between the A/C condenser and the radiator, taking several minutes to retrieve.

Anyway, part of this was necessary as the idle has gotten poor on Rusty in the last couple of days, even though he hasn't gone very far in that time. So, expecting that people will want to drive him during the GTG I thought it best to adjust things again. First I checked and it was idling at 450 RPM and 14" of vacuum, when it had been at 600 and 17" the last time I adjusted it.

So I pulled the PCV hose off the carb to see what a bit more air would do and the idle shot to 1250 RPM and 20" of vacuum. Obviously it is getting more fuel than it needs. And apparently the idle mix screws don't stop or limit the fuel or turning them toward the closed position would speed the idle up from 450 and it doesn't.

As it turned out, it idles best with the passenger's side screw open 2 turns and the driver's side open 1/2 turn. No, it doesn't idle as well if they are both open 1 1/4 turns. Any more or less on either side causes the idle to get worse. But with that setting it idles at 600 RPM and 16".

Seem obvious that the a rebuild is needed on this Holley, but not right now. Perhaps the pint of Chemtool I put in the tank will help. Or, maybe it needs a lot of driving.

 

Having driven (breifly) this truck, it confirms my original opinion. I still prefer a C6 to a NP435/T18, particularly behind a warmed up engine. The super low reduction reverse gear is a bit jerky at idle, and harder to moderate the throttle when trying to avoid the whiplash-effect.
A ZF might be a totally different story. Bit higher gear reverse, and more than 3 (2, 95% of the time) *useable* forward road gears. Heck, even a T19 would be a bit of an improvement.
I'll live with a minor loss in MPG, to not have to deal with the drawbacks (my opinion) of the T18/NP435.
Granted, the holley carb needs a bit of help, which didn't make matters any better.

 

RW - Are you suggesting that I swap the engines, but stick with the C6 rather than go to the ZF?

By the way, on the drive last night the engine pulled well from almost idle in 3rd or 4th, and Chris and I agreed it doesn't have too much cam. But, it still doesn't idle properly so I will probably put the E'brock on when I get back from this trip - and get the vibes fixed.

I had planned to drive Rusty on today's trip to see Dad in order to check mileage, but the vibration and the fact that the wipers didn't seem to work very well last night changed my mind.

 

No, I'm not suggesting the C6 over the ZF. Simply that *I* prefer the C6 over a T18/NP435. In fact, I'd love to get a chance to get behind the wheel again once you have the ZF installed, so I can see what it's like. I know the ZF won't be going in right away, but thats not an issue.

I agree, the cam is nowhere near being "too much". More "just right" in my opinion. Rough idle cams and manual trans make for a poor driver experience, been there, done that..... Great for racing use, lousy for daily driving.

 

The shift pattern of that NP435 is tight and when I say tight I mean the holes directly beside each other making difficult to get the stick in the right hole. Jason drives a ruck with a ZF in it everyday and he couldnt hit the holes for nothing. Also the NP435 seems as though it might not be a synchronized tranny. My opinion would be to put that tranny out with the dinosaurs.

 

2nd, 3rd, and 4th are all synchronized. 1st and reverse are un-synchronized.

Personally, if I'm going to be driving a "three-speed", I'd take the NP435 over the C6 because the NP435's 2nd and 3rd are both lower than the C6's 1st and second.

The NP435 is also a very strong, "heavy duty" manual transmission, and I'd take it over the Borg-Warners and a C6 any day. I guess you like what you have though.

I'd go so far as to say the ONLY downside of the NP435 is the fact that it's 4 speed with no overdrive, un-like the ZF. If the NP435 had a fifth-over, I'd be in hog heaven.

I think others on here have said that the New Process also has plastic shift forks? I don't know because I haven't been inside one.

 

The c^ doesnt lack anything toughness. They run these behind drag cars all the time.

 

The higher 1st/2nd gear ratios in the C6 is made up by the torque convertor.
It's tough as a boot, evidenced by it's use behind FE engines (up to, and including 428CJ) in the 60's/70's, 460's and small blocks both in the 70's 80's and into the 90's, as well as the 300 I6, and even diesel V8's. Finding a C6 in cars, trucks, and fleet service vehicles is a testament to it's durability. Pretty sure it was even used in F600/B600 trucks and bus cutaways. Rare, but still an option.
The only thing that led to it's demise, was the lack of OD. Of course, the best bits were transplated into the E4OD, which aside from electronic issues, is another very tough auto trans.

It's just my opinion that the C6 is easier to live with on a daily basis over the T18/NP435 3+granny "truck" trans. As long as you don't overheat or run it low on fluid, a C6 will do anything those will, except wear out your right arm shifting gears.


It's biggest downside, is the rather tall reverse. Kinda hurts when trying to back a heavy trailer/load.

 

Actually, it'll do another thing better than the manual transmissions - use more gas.

Ok, sounds like y'all are pretty much in agreement w/me: Swap engines 'tween Rusty and Dad's truck, assuming Rusty's engine passes several tests, and put the ZF5 and Dad's NP208 t-case behind it. Given the lack of a clutch pedal and linkage, Rusty will have the C6 from Dad's truck and his current NP208. And, the leftovers will inc the NP435 and BW1356.

I hope to get started on this project when I get home from this trip, but the first part of it will be taking measurements and finishing the CAD drawings to be sure what spacer is needed for the pilot bearing. And, I have to find a throughout bearing that is large enough ID that I can put an extender on the ZF's input bearing retainer shaft, and that may be the hardest part of all. Last, I have to see if a 12 1/4" 460 clutch will go under a 12" 400's pressure plate - otherwise I have to turn the 460 clutch down or have one made to fit.

 

Oh of course. Didn't at all say they were weak.

The TH350 and 400 Chevy transmissions are also outstanding transmissions.

The nice thing about a manual though is that there's no torque converter slip, and you ALWAYS have control over when the gears shift. Plus, there's no modulator valve.

The C6 also takes about 20 horses to run.

I'm still of the opinion (yes, despite what Ford engineers and every other manufacturer says) that a manual is a better towing transmission.

 

I agree with the towing aspect. However, for some reason nobody else does. All the big three US manufacturers discontinued the standard trannys last yr. They are all autos from here on out.

 

Two drawback with the manual, when it comes to towing. Getting the load moving from a dead stop requires either a very deep reduction low gear or slipping the the clutch, heating it up. Torque convertor does this easily, while increasing the torque output of the engine.
The second item, is driveline shock when transitioning from coasting to power, and vise-versa.

The fact that nearly all manual transmissions these days use ATF as a lube, in the quest for improved MPG, leads to higher trans temps. At least the auto has a cooler, and additional cooling can be added. Not as easy to do with a manual. This aspect accelerates the wear inside the trans, particularly when the load on the gears is higher than the sheer strength of the lube. When this starts to occur, the gears are practically running metal to metal, without the oil cushion between them.

FWIW, even semi's are starting to make the switch to "auto-shift" trans, so the engine can remain in it's peak torque range most of the time.

 

True. But since the ZF5 was put in the F350 I suspect it'll do what I need to do in my F150. And, that synchro'd 1st gear should get anything I could ever tow rolling easily.