You didn't say what you need it, so a Ranger is a valid suggestion... And I think some of the 4WD models do get 20+ on the highway.

If you plan to drive it a lot, I'd definitely go for an E4OD, or something better. For an occasional run to Home Depot or somesuch, tranny choice won't matter much. Personally, I'd probably go for a ZF if I had a choice.

 

*sigh* If ever there was a shining example why techs and shop owners avoid automotive web BBS like the plague - here we go! rather than READING what was actually typed....

I didnt say the trannys in question shared parts or were based on whatever.
How much I can build a tranny to handle is irrelevant and was not discussed.

The THM400 is perhaps the most bulletproof tranny EVER. The C6 is to ford what the 400 is to GM, 'cept the C6 was never quite as reliable - which is exactly what I said. Not only in cars and light trucks, but in coach building/chassis building applications the 400 got specced more than the C6 about 5:1

When a super duty automatic was used for high dollar applications, did Ferrarri, Jaguar, Hummer, Jeep, AM General, Rolls Royce and Bentley go to ford or GM?

As for large 1990's electronics, no one alive is going to dispute that the 4L80E is stronger than the E4OD, and as for reliabilty...well the E4 reputation is easily googleable and speaks for itself - which is exactly what I said.

Which, shockingly is what I told the original poster: choose the C6 over the E4 for both reliability AND price. 'magine that!



PS: the C6 handles about 350HP in stock form, but thats ok, it takes about 100hp to turn it. the CASE can handle about 500/500. its pretty embarassing when your tranny splits in two at the strip so the early cases are actually in almost as much demand as the variable stator 400's (but this could also be due to the fact that the DRCE engine block is GM based)

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go throw away some clutch packs and gearsets from the parts shed 'cuz I have never seen them. I for one am tired of tripping over stuff I have never seen.

 

quaddriver you really should have given up when you were ahead. the C6 was put behind FACTORY 365-400hp engines (and higher if you count the Boss 429) so once agian you are showing ignorance. AS to the cases only being good for 500hp would you like to see the case that has been behind my 927hp big block for the past 5yrs?
If you take a look around you will find many builders that can build and in fact HAVE built and are running C6 trans behind 2000hp blown big blocks (you might want to take your "the case only holds 500hp" and tell that to Bob Chandler (for those that don't know he is the owner of Big Foot) that motor puts out depending on the venue they are running 1500-2500hp and yes he has a C6 behind it, or how about the Big Dog monster truck 1500hp blown big block running once again a C6.
As to the 400 being spec in motor home chassis more then C6 you are wrong once again and the choice had ZERO to do with the transmission. IT has to do with what frame they bought and for your information there are many thousands of ford C6s in motor homes ambulances tow trucks etc.

As to the 400 being SSSOOOO much stronger, ever wonder why all the GM guys use a TH350 for racing (except those that can afford to upgrade a PG) well I would tell you but it would go over your head. The 400 had a lot of design issues. The 400 is an ok transmission but even GM didn't use it in their high performance vehicles what a concept. (and for your information I was Chevrolet certified journyman level tech on this stuff as well as ATRA and ASE master tech)

first off even the most anti C6 guys only claim 70hp loss and that isn't even proven and you can't just put a number solid like that as it's based more on a precentage and if you where half understood the working you would understand that. As well as the fact that you make it seem like the C6 will cost you 100hp over the 400. Well just for reference even a manual transmission takes HP to turn (about 65% of wht the typical automatic does from what I have been able to find). The truth is that a C6 utilizes somewhere between 40-60hp and the THM400 has lots of numbers thrown around to anywhere from 35-75hp so guess what they are about the same... FOR HORSEPOWER LOSS.

yes I would suggest that as being a great idea because if your post is ANY indication you have no business inside of an automatic transmission. I mean seriously to claim that a C6 can only handle 350hp shows you have ZERO knowledge of even factory fords let alone what a built anythign can do.

 

I to have both a C6 and an E40D. I built my C6 with damn near everything you can throw in one for strength . It is the best driving tranny I have ever had. It is a blast to embarass later model sports cars in a 78 F350 super Cab.


Xtra clutches, roller bearings, lower gear sets, basically everything but a 300M shaft. For way less than what my E40D will cost to rebuild.


If I could control the lock up in 3rd and 4th I would like my E40D. I just do not have the time to tinker with it.

My vote is C6.

Monsterbaby is right, many C6 in high HP situations.


QuadDriver .... it is not our fault you probably let the bellhousing bolts get loose or something.... Even if you did not, their are failures in every scenario.


People are just plain misinformed and uneducated about the C6.

 

thats a pretty good trick considering ford NEVER built a 365-400hp NET engine of any type of any year with a C6. (hint: net horsepower would be the ONLY horsepower the tranny input shaft will ever see.) The 375hp GROSS BOSS 429 was rumored to be higher on the dyno - which I believe however - the 859 machines built had sticks ONLY. stick <> c6. the first year 460 (the strongest) was 360hp GROSS. I know its tough having your HP fantasies dashed on the rocks but welcome to reality.

I didnt rate them at 500, FORD did. Yanno, the company from michigan with the blue oval? What is done on a modified transmission in an offroad setting with very little torque differential across the input output shafts is as they say - irrelevant.

Again irrelevant. The poster is not building either transmission and asked a simple question. this also has no bearing on the reality of actual reliability - you being an ATRA member as you claimed should be well able to post historic figures on failure rates.

Oh, you got the sales figures? Please post them. since you claimed Im wrong Id like to see what it was judged by. only fair. and had nothing to do with the tranny eh? More tranny adaptor plates are built to allow nearly ANYONE to adapt to....GM. Ever drive a Jag XK12. I have. was that a C6 or a 400 behind it?

Irrelevant. GM truck divsion outsold ford as an oem. however is this a tacit admission that more chassis vehicles exist with gm powertrains vs ford?

Um for the same reason they stroke 350's rather than use actual 400 blocks? i.e. availability? a 400 tranny will sell for 3-4x what a 350 tranny will as a core. Same as a 400 vs 350 engine block. Supply and demand does work. so to explicitly answer your question: those who are in a class whose engine will not stress the 350 unduly use the 350 simply cuz all the richer guys have the 400's. ( I thought you said you race and build stuff - this is elementary HS stuff. I should not have to be lecturing on it.)

amuse us and try. this I would like to hear. (and dont mention the intermediate sprag. that was fixed with aftermarket parts, oh I dunno, 30 years ago?) the 400 internals live in other cases TODAY. so much for design issues.

Oh. So when we consider that the most prolific (that means most common) muscle car sold was the Chevelle SS and every 396 427 and 454 engine had a 400 specced after it was invented....or the olds 442/HO - ditto. GTOs using the 400/455 in any ram air configuration as well as the cat 2+2? Buick 400 and 455 gs's? Well those were the highest performance vehicles and they all had 400s as the ONLY auto tranny option with the engines that made more than 275hp* - you know you CAN look this up yourself - (which is fortuitous since the thm350 was only rated for 275hp max in stock form for HD models, 250 hp otherwise - the reason being there is no fixed center support - but being a rebuilder you already knew this. why you chose to neglect to remember it is beyond me)

*=not entirely true, if memory serves the cat 2+2 had a PG available until 1970

really? wow. however....

The reality is, you spoke up without READING MY POST and now you are just thrashing with drift of epidemic proportions. thrash some more if you need to. But each time you post nuggets like , well...what can I say?

my answer to the poster (which as you note no one has actually disputed) - stands.

 

ok well to make it simple heres a question for you.what do you think would be better as a daily driver and why.A 97 f 250 4x4 351 with a e 4od.Or a 94 f 350 4x4 351 w with the c6?I know the choice is mine but I just wanted to see what some of you would think.thanks

 

Ahem, ... if you remember I disputed it as did a number of other posters.

You stated, and I quote I think that more than one poster on this thread has tried to tell the original questor and you ... if YOU would read as you suggested others do ... that to call the C6 unreliable is BS, a pack of pig poop, bogus and in your own words .....

blasphemous
__________________________________________________ _________________________

(adj) blasphemous, profane, sacrilegious (grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred)

A definition of sacred on the Web: worthy of respect or dedication
__________________________________________________ ________________________


I restate: (in bold type so maybe it will sink in this time)

I used to buy light trucks for outrageous towing requirements and never worried about a C6.

(I) Never, repeat NEVER had a problem with a C6 when it was maintained and driven properly.

... slippage is indeed one of the reasons the mileage isn't that good, however reliability was NEVER a problem when a C6 was used and maintained properly.

You, quaddriver, might even want to re-read my whole post if you still have doubts that someone actually disputed the advice you presented.

Time to get out the pitchforks and torchs boys!!!

We got us a heretic .....

 

quaddriver keep talking your doing a great job of showing everyone how little you really know and I don't have to do a thing.

Ford never built a 365 to 400hp motor? guess you don't consider the 365hp Police interceptor 390s used from 67-71 with C6s behind them as ford motors then.


AND YOU are the one that claimed the cases would split at 500hp so when I brought up all the 2000hp motors in front of C6s your response is it's illrelevent. I have a real good suggestion for you don't ever post about transmissions again and NEVER work on one. I am not even going to dignify the rest of your post with an answer because everyone in this thread can see through it.

 

yes, I mentioned they built a number of them at 365-400 hp GROSS rating. this gross rating is NOT the *NET* rating that a tranny will see at the input shaft when installed. circa 1972 the SAE changed the rating methodology to rein in manufacturers who tested engines with open collectors, no accessories, light flywheels and then sold them at that Hp. the difference between gross vs net is typically 60hp or MORE.

No I didnt. I clearly said the case was rated at 500hp simply because ford said so, and I said that is embarrassing to have a tranny split at the track, thats why racers use them, second to the 400 of course.

Please note, you want everyone to beleive the C6 is strong (which oddly, I never said it WASNT in any post in any form) and as evidence, you offer up your own C6 which is by your admission, heavily modified to make it strong.

ummmm ok....

 

You just keep stepping in it, don't you quaddriver.

Rob (monsterbaby) knows more about C6's than you ever will.