New carb AOD transmission TV connection

[Gary Lewis]

Rick - I'm not trying to debate about the AOD.  I'm just trying to make sure we have facts.  Yes, when fuel injected the 5.0L did have more torque than the 4.9L.  But for 5 of the 7 Bullnose years many of the 4.9's had more torque than the 5.0L.  And even in '85 they were still selling the 2V 5.0L which put out 250 lb-ft.

In other words, we can't really give a blanket statement that the 5.0L had more torque than the 4.9L w/o knowing the year and the application.

[Mark]

Here's the saving grace with my AOD it will likely never be put to any extremes 😂 I'm old and I drive like I'm old 😂

I bought this truck with really no knowledge of the mechanics. I've owned a few Ford's over the years, but never really did much to them. So far the two biggest issues I've found I have to deal with has been the ignition system, and this carburetor. I feel like I'm about to likely get past the carburetor problem, I'm intending to start the rebuild tomorrow, I got lots of cleaning and probably a bit of polishing to do so probably with my schedule as it is I'll have the carburetor situation completed first part of next week. And then I'm moving on to ignition.

But also im sure the AOD will be fine with what I'm doing with it.

[Gary Lewis]

Careful with the "old" bit.  I'll be 3/4 of a century old in 3 months, and one in this conversation is a year ahead of me.  

But I understand, I don't drive quite the way I used to either.  

[LARIAT 85]

I understand.  I did some more checking, and I found that it wasn't just fuel injection that made the extra torque possible.  In 1980 and 1981, all of the engines were still carbureted and the 5.0/302 produced [slightly] more torque than the 4.9/300.

There were actually only 3 years of the 7-year Bullnose run when the 4.9/300 produced more torque than the 5.0/302:  1982, 1983, and 1984.  

If you look at the years from 1980 - 1996, the big six bested the 5.0 in torque for only 5 years, compared to 11 years when the opposite was true.

I am not sure what Ford changed in 1982 for torque output to jump 25 lb-ft in the big six, but they waited until 1985 to fortify the 5.0 with 40 more lb-ft when fuel injection was introduced.  Then the 4.9 topped the 5.0 again in torque output for 1987 and 1988 - both were fuel injected.  After that, the 5.0 consistently produced more torque until the 4.9 was canceled in 1996.  At any rate, the AOD should hold up fine behind either engine.

I don't think there was ever a generation of Ford trucks that had near as many technological changes and advances as the Bullnose generation.

[Gary Lewis]

Rick - I agree with you about the # of changes.  Man, you'd think that in a single year things would be fairly constant, but they weren't.  If you look at the 1982 4.9L ratings I posted earlier there were 5 different torque ratings for the same engine in the same year, from 234 to 257 lb-ft, and at three different RPM ratings - 1200, 1400, and 1600.  What in the world were they doing to get all of those changes?  

Even the 5.0L had three different ratings that year, and at two different RPM's.  So it makes it very difficult to say which one had the most torque as you'd have to specify the year, the application, and whether it was a 49-state or CA-truck.

Anyway, I agree the AOD should be fine.  I've always thought an AOD and 4.10 gears would be a great combo.  Thought about it for Dad's truck but then realized there's not an AOD for the big-block bolt pattern so went with the E4OD to get the OD.

[LARIAT 85]

85lebaront2 wrote

Also, if torque wasn't the issue, why did Ford change to using the C6 and E4OD in place of the C4 and AOD, it sure wasn't for fuel economy as the internal drag of both are more than the C4 or AOD.

The FMX-based AOD replaced the C4.  Like the C4, the AOD is a light-duty transmission but with a fourth overdrive gear.

The E4OD replaced the C6.  The E4OD is a heavy-duty transmission based on the C6 but with electronic controls and a fourth overdrive gear.

[LARIAT 85]

Gary Lewis wrote

Anyway, I agree the AOD should be fine.  I've always thought an AOD and 4.10 gears would be a great combo.  Thought about it for Dad's truck but then realized there's not an AOD for the big-block bolt pattern so went with the E4OD to get the OD.

I like the way you think!  4.10 gears is on my list for the next upgrade to Lucille.  

[Gary Lewis]

Our calculator says you'll be spinning at 1935 RPM @ 65 MPH with 31" tires, 4.10 gears, and an AOD.  But 5000 RPM shift points will be at 47, 77, and 113 MPH.  

[LARIAT 85]

Lucille cruises like a Lincoln with the AOD and 3.55 gears.  At 55 MPH, I am slumbering along at only 1500 RPM at 55 MPH in overdrive.  My thinking is that the 4.10 gear will get the 5.0 in it's powerband quicker, and will be MUCH more fun and responsive.

[85lebaront2]

And to continue the AOD story, it became the AOD-E when the gearset was modified to use a hydraulically locked converter, then became the 4R70W and finally the 4R75W as Ford changed their transmission IDs to make the fit and number of gears part of the model designation, same as GM did. Part of this is due to Ford and GM sharing transmissions (4R100 for Ford 4L100 for GM, 6F50 for Ford, 6T50 for GM).

One on the things to also keep in mind is the intended use and base weight of the vehicle the transmission was used in. I had a 1970 1/2 Falcon station wagon which was roughly the same size/weight as an 80s LTD wagon, probably around 4000 lbs empty Look at your empty weight on Lucille. The other wagon I had (replacing the Falcon after my oldest son ripped the right rear fender open) was a 1971 Mercury Colony Park, a bit over 5200 lbs empty. Falcon had a 302 and C4 until my late wife blew 2nd gear in it. After that it had a small block pattern C6. The Mercury had a 429 2 barrel, which quickly grew 2 more once I found that the only difference mechanically was intake and carb.

To put the comparison the rest of the way, when I acquired Darth in 1994, I figured I (a) no longer needed the Mercury wagon for towing trailers and (b) could carry 5 passengers in Darth. I only really lost the roof rack and rear jump seat capability. Darth weighs 6400 lbs (certified) empty including near fumes in both tanks but a 100 lb aluminum camper shell. I think my 1970 LTD Brougham 2dr weighed around 4800 lbs.

On trucks, look at the GVW, for Darth it's 10K, since the truck was titled in Maine and they do not record weights, the clerk at the DMV branch just looked up the weight for an F350 crew cab and came up with 5500 lbs. I use regular, not T series VA plates on him as a result, the plates are for up to 7500 lbs GVW so 5500 + 2000 = 7500, work for me.

[mat in tn]

I use the aod every chance I get. true, it's not as strong as the c6. c6 is a fair benchmark for many of us. the aod that I have in dolly paired with a "warm" efi 5.0 runs through 3.73 rear gear and it's a blast to drive.
I rarely pull a trailer but it's my shop truck haha. running parts, carrying engines. axles, trans and often for 500 miles a day.  I use later model cores to build them as they have all the upgrades. earlier years were certainly the weakest. 84 falls into the weak category. how you use it is really the point. the MOST critical issue is getting the throttle valve adjustment correct! this cannot be stressed enough. itis absolutely best to set it by static pressure method using a gauge. absent of that, know that a "LITTLE" tight is better than a little loose. loose will allow slipping clutches leading to a rebuild but tight will provide harsh shifts. so, by saying a little, I mean a little.

[Mark]

I appreciate all the info, I've got the carburetor completed earlier today. Completely rebuilt. Polished and should be good to go. I'll revisit it in a few days once I complete the ignition. I'm moving slooooowly and methodically through this build, I'm not a fan of having to rework things so attempting to get it exact as I go.

I appreciate all the information you all are sharing, I'm cautious of forums because I've seen folks that are trying to learn get absolutely torched for asking a basic question. I walked away from a jeep forum because I saw a lot of that. So THANKS Y'ALL!

[Gary Lewis]

Our guidelines say that, among other things, we are "Constructive: No talking down nor "yelling" at others.".  And we've banned people for not following them.  

[85lebaront2]

There is definitely a fine line on the AOD throttle settings between "jerk your back teeth loose and hunt between 3 and 4 at 55 mph and ooze into each gear like a worn out turbo Hydramatic".

Those of us who are old enough to have dealt with TV adjustments on the old 4 speed Hydramatics, especially the single coupling ones learned that the book adjustment will get you close, but you still have to do some "drive it and tweak it" fine tuning. The Roto-hydramatics are even worse, the shift from coupling to all mechanical is compounded by going from a roughly 3:1 gear to a little more than 1.5:1 gear so it is like skipping a gear. as a result the clutch pack takes a beating on those.

[Mark]

Kind of off the subject, but if any of you watch the channel "vice grip garage" on YouTube. He released an episode yesterday and he's installed a GM style HEI distributor on a 300 6. I watch him all the time and I've seen lots of query's about that very install. Might be something worth passing on to others.

[mat in tn]

hei seems to be frowned on around here. although we do use them with great success on non efi builds. i will be using one on my current build. hard to beat the simplicity. I only wish that I could buy one made in America

[Mark]

just reading through the posts they definitely seem to be an item that's a hot topic. 🤷 Good video though for someone wanting to do the conversion.

[FuzzFace2]

The issue is in v8 motors there is not a lot of room for the BIG HEI.
The air filter housing hits and / or you cant turn the dist. enough to get it timed.

Now on the 300 six there is nothing in the way so it is a lot easier swap from TFI to HEI.
But going from points to HEI I just cant see doing as you can get a Pertronix unit to drop in place of the points and never have to do anything again.

BTW I took a HEI from a GM 250 six motor and it was a drop in to a Toyota L/C 238 six motor and woke it up big time.
Dave ----

[mat in tn]

it is certainly bulky on a 5.0! I also have had to clearance an intake once before but let's just say the intake was made of the same grade of chinesium.

[85lebaront2]

Dave, that is not real surprising as I had heard for years that the Land Cruiser 6 was a copy of the old Chevy 235 engine.