New carb AOD transmission TV connection

[Gary Lewis]

I just noticed you have a rare beast, 300 with an AOD. I would definitely be very careful as the AOD/300 combination is a bit fragile due to the torque of the 300. Ford only used the AOD in the trucks for a short time replacing it with the E4OD after EFI and the E4OD became available, same reason the C4 was short lived and switched to the C6. In cars the AOD was used behind the 351W for a few years.

That is a myth that just won't die. The 5.0/302 V8 actually produces more torque than the 4.9/300 six.

The AOD was used in the F-Series trucks from 1980 all the way up to 1993.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.