Dad's Truck Build

[Gary Lewis]

.... In other words, we were pushing the torque converter to the rear and into the transmission, therefore binding things....

I'm no expert on this, but I think it's pretty easy to damage a torque converter doing that. I know it's a risk if you don't get it to make the 3 "steps" going onto the trans. I don't know what I'd recommend, but if the torque converter is damaged I'm thinking you'll want to know that before you get the trans installed.

Bill - Yes, the M-block used a C6. But the issue is that the M-block's crank ends about 1/4" closer to the block than the 460's. So if you put everything together w/o a spacer to move the flexplate back, there's 1/4" of slop in the system.

I want the flexplate to be exactly where the 460's flexplate would have been. That way a 460's starter is a perfect fit. And I want the pilot for the torque converter to end at the same spot as a 460's so there's no slop in the system.

Bob - We didn't tighten the bolts any where near enough to damage anything. We were very careful to check that we could turn the engine over, and when we sensed that there was a bind we stopped tightening the bolts.

I'll draw it up tomorrow and I think it will be easy to see what I'm talking about.

[85lebaront2]

Bill - Yes, the M-block used a C6. But the issue is that the M-block's crank ends about 1/4" closer to the block than the 460's. So if you put everything together w/o a spacer to move the flexplate back, there's 1/4" of slop in the system.

I want the flexplate to be exactly where the 460's flexplate would have been. That way a 460's starter is a perfect fit. And I want the pilot for the torque converter to end at the same spot as a 460's so there's no slop in the system.

Bob - We didn't tighten the bolts any where near enough to damage anything. We were very careful to check that we could turn the engine over, and when we sensed that there was a bind we stopped tightening the bolts.

I'll draw it up tomorrow and I think it will be easy to see what I'm talking about.

Gary, my question is what did Ford do on the 351M/400 with a C6? was it a different "dished" flex plate? I thought I remembered the starters were the same as the 429/460 ones as far as depth and the weird one bolt each way design.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, my question is what did Ford do on the 351M/400 with a C6? was it a different "dished" flex plate? I thought I remembered the starters were the same as the 429/460 ones as far as depth and the weird one bolt each way design.

Yes, the flexplates are quite different. Here's the table from several days ago and you can see that the flexplate is .250" different between the two engines. And the end of the crank is .460" different in relationship with the back of the block.

Anyway, drawings with measurements will be coming tomorrow.

[Ford F834]

Yes, the flexplates are quite different. Here's the table from several days ago and you can see that the flexplate is .250" different between the two engines. And the end of the crank is .460" different in relationship with the back of the block.

Anyway, drawings with measurements will be coming tomorrow.

Gary, no one likes a set back... especially after as much planning and preparation as you’ve done. However I think you are doing really well. Snags come up even with bone stock parts, and modifications/adaptations up that probability by at least 10x. Even commonly done swaps and mods don’t document every possible glitch, and a E4OD behind a 400 is likely an all time first no? I say bravo and carry on! Everything else looks really good, and you should have some very useful data for the next guy... is this one of Tim’s ZF adapters that you are working with or an entirely different part?

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, no one likes a set back... especially after as much planning and preparation as you’ve done. However I think you are doing really well. Snags come up even with bone stock parts, and modifications/adaptations up that probability by at least 10x. Even commonly done swaps and mods don’t document every possible glitch, and a E4OD behind a 400 is likely an all time first no? I say bravo and carry on! Everything else looks really good, and you should have some very useful data for the next guy... is this one of Tim’s ZF adapters that you are working with or an entirely different part?

Thanks, Jonathan. I appreciate the support. And, in the almost light of day, we did make good progress yesterday. Just not as much as I'd planned or hoped for.

The adapter is the prototype to Tim's. I drew it up, with the help of many others, and machined it. The fit was perfect and I told Tim about it. He was interested so I sent him the drawings and he made several. I wonder how many he's sold? But it obviously isn't quite right for an E4OD swap.

As for how many E4OD's there are behind 400's, I haven't read about any others. So this is may be another first-of-its-kind, and little glitches like this are to be expected. I just didn't see it coming.

Hopefully later today I can figure out what the issue is and fix it.

[85lebaront2]

Thanks, Jonathan. I appreciate the support. And, in the almost light of day, we did make good progress yesterday. Just not as much as I'd planned or hoped for.

The adapter is the prototype to Tim's. I drew it up, with the help of many others, and machined it. The fit was perfect and I told Tim about it. He was interested so I sent him the drawings and he made several. I wonder how many he's sold? But it obviously isn't quite right for an E4OD swap.

As for how many E4OD's there are behind 400's, I haven't read about any others. So this is may be another first-of-its-kind, and little glitches like this are to be expected. I just didn't see it coming.

Hopefully later today I can figure out what the issue is and fix it.

For your information, when I switched the E4OD into Darth, with the converter fully seated as far into the front pump as it would go, when I "married" the transmission to the engine the converter studs just penetrated the flex plate. I had enough thread protruding through the flex plate to verify a correct installation, roughly 1/8", just enough to get a new TC nut started to seat the converter.

Since the E4OD was intended as a reasonably fitted update to a C6, even though they were not used on the 400s it would seem that a 400 set up for a C6 with the original parts should accept an E4OD with no problems. The recess in the crank. or adapter has to be the correct diameter for the C6/E4OD converter snout. The actual location of the TC with the nuts tightened is approximately 3/8" forward of the full seated position, you need to allow for that. If it was mine, I would try an installation with no adapter, just the 400 flex plate and thin headed bolts attaching it. If the TC studs just enter the flex plate like this, you have the correct assembly.

Unfortunately I no longer have access to the starter nose drawings, so can't do a dimensional comparison there. I used Rock Auto's catalog, according to them, using the Motorcraft Remanufactured PNs, the 351M and the 460 take the same starter for the automatic transmissions, this tells me that there should be no need for the adapter if a C6 was to be used and since the E4OD is designed to bolt up the same as the C6 then it should not need an adapter and the later 460 PMGR starter should bolt on perfectly. One of the notes in the 1981 351 listings specifically states one threaded and one unthreaded hole.

[Gary Lewis]

For your information, when I switched the E4OD into Darth, with the converter fully seated as far into the front pump as it would go, when I "married" the transmission to the engine the converter studs just penetrated the flex plate. I had enough thread protruding through the flex plate to verify a correct installation, roughly 1/8", just enough to get a new TC nut started to seat the converter.Since the E4OD was intended as a reasonably fitted update to a C6, even though they were not used on the 400s it would seem that a 400 set up for a C6 with the original parts should accept an E4OD with no problems. The recess in the crank. or adapter has to be the correct diameter for the C6/E4OD converter snout. The actual location of the TC with the nuts tightened is approximately 3/8" forward of the full seated position, you need to allow for that. If it was mine, I would try an installation with no adapter, just the 400 flex plate and thin headed bolts attaching it. If the TC studs just enter the flex plate like this, you have the correct assembly.Unfortunately I no longer have access to the starter nose drawings, so can't do a dimensional comparison there. I used Rock Auto's catalog, according to them, using the Motorcraft Remanufactured PNs, the 351M and the 460 take the same starter for the automatic transmissions, this tells me that there should be no need for the adapter if a C6 was to be used and since the E4OD is designed to bolt up the same as the C6 then it should not need an adapter and the later 460 PMGR starter should bolt on perfectly. One of the notes in the 1981 351 listings specifically states one threaded and one unthreaded hole.

Bill - I think what you are saying is that when you tighten the torque converter's retaining nuts it pulls the converter forward from the fully-seated position approximately 3/8". And that's valuable info as we noticed that the converter's studs were just coming through the flexplate, so wondered about that.

As I think about this, there are two things the spacer needs to do:

1. Put the flexplate in the correct position for the starter to mate with it. And we have two choices of starter - an M-block starter or a 460 starter. The MPC says that the 351M/400 takes a E1TF 11001—BA and the 460 takes a E1TF 11001—CA, so they are two different starters. However, I can't tell you what the difference is.

Put the torque converter in the right spot to mate properly with the flexplate and yet be correctly positioned with reference to the transmission's input shaft.

The thickness of the flange on the spacer determines where the flexplate is relative to the back of the block/front of the tranny. And the length of the nose of the spacer determines how far forward the torque converter can be pulled.

Thinking through it this way has helped. Thanks.

As for needing a spacer or not, let me draw it up and let's see what we think.

[85lebaront2]

Bill - I think what you are saying is that when you tighten the torque converter's retaining nuts it pulls the converter forward from the fully-seated position approximately 3/8". And that's valuable info as we noticed that the converter's studs were just coming through the flexplate, so wondered about that.

As I think about this, there are two things the spacer needs to do:

1. Put the flexplate in the correct position for the starter to mate with it. And we have two choices of starter - an M-block starter or a 460 starter. The MPC says that the 351M/400 takes a E1TF 11001—BA and the 460 takes a E1TF 11001—CA, so they are two different starters. However, I can't tell you what the difference is.

Put the torque converter in the right spot to mate properly with the flexplate and yet be correctly positioned with reference to the transmission's input shaft.

The thickness of the flange on the spacer determines where the flexplate is relative to the back of the block/front of the tranny. And the length of the nose of the spacer determines how far forward the torque converter can be pulled.

Thinking through it this way has helped. Thanks.

As for needing a spacer or not, let me draw it up and let's see what we think.

What you might do, if you have an original M block starter and a 460 automatic starter, they don't need to be the PMGR, in fact the old movable pole piece might be easier to use. Attach the block plate to the block using short 7/16-14 bolts, probably only need 2 or 3, right above the starter and maybe one opposite for stability.Then to use proper English terms, offer up the starter to it's proper mounting, using a temporary bolt and nut and short bolt, snug it with the proper spanner. After that, with the flex plate to be used stroke the starter drive into it's proper position for cranking the motor and see if the meshing of the gears is correct.Basically do this with and without the spacer to see if you have the proper gear mesh and clearance, then work on the TC position.

[Gary Lewis]

What you might do, if you have an original M block starter and a 460 automatic starter, they don't need to be the PMGR, in fact the old movable pole piece might be easier to use. Attach the block plate to the block using short 7/16-14 bolts, probably only need 2 or 3, right above the starter and maybe one opposite for stability.

Then to use proper English terms, offer up the starter to it's proper mounting, using a temporary bolt and nut and short bolt, snug it with the proper spanner. After that, with the flex plate to be used stroke the starter drive into it's proper position for cranking the motor and see if the meshing of the gears is correct.

Basically do this with and without the spacer to see if you have the proper gear mesh and clearance, then work on the TC position.

I do have M-block and a 460 starter. And the 460 one came off Huck with an E4OD. But, is there a 460 auto and a 460 manual starter? I don't see that in the MPC, but maybe I'm missing something?

Do you think the block plate is stiff enough to hold the starter w/o the tranny?

[Ray Cecil]

Must remember: Two steps forward and one back is still progress. Two steps forward and one back is still progress. Two steps forward and one back is still progress..........

Ok, so the best laid plans of mice and men. Things didn't go exactly as they were planned. Close, but no cigar.

As you know, today was a big day. My brother came down to help me install the engine, transmission, and transfer case and then put the cab back on the truck. Well, we got the engine installed, and here he is guiding it home:

And, here he is doing the same on the tranny:

Then the "fun" started. We got the transmission lined up and connected to the engine, but it wouldn't pull up tight to the engine w/o binding such that you couldn't turn the engine over. After installing 6" G5 bolts as guides, and a jack stand on a skate, as shown below, we were able to pull the tranny back and inspect things, slide it forward to test, slide it back, ...... We did that drill multiple times until we proved that the adapter is the problem.

And, the issue with the adapter is twofold. First, on the front side of it the recess that goes over the rear of the crank wasn't machined cleanly enough. In the pic below you can see that there is a bit of a ledge at the end of the arrow, and that was keeping the front face of the adapter from mating fully with the rear face of the crank. So we put the adapter in the lathe and bored it slightly deeper and cleaner, which allowed it to mate correctly with the back of the crank.

But, that still didn't allow the tranny to mate with the engine. So we took more measurements and determined that the projection on the rear of the adapter is at least .175" too long. In other words, we were pushing the torque converter to the rear and into the transmission, therefore binding things.

So tomorrow I'm going to spend time accurately measuring the 460 and its flexplate as well as the 400 and its flexplate, and determine what the dimensions of an adapter should be to put everything in its proper position. Then I can modify this adapter to match those dimensions.

WOW Gary, can't wait to see it in person later this Month!!! I am getting excited!