cruise o matic governor

• Account Settings

Top stories

• Abandoned History

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part II)

We continue our Abandoned History coverage of the Ford Cruise-O-Matic transmission today, shortly after the three-speed automatic established itself as a reliable motivation source for Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury products. Developed by the Warner Gear division of Borg-Warner, the new automatic caught Ford up to the competition as far as an automatic offering was concerned. Efficient and economical to build, Studebaker got in on the Cruise-O-Matic action for their cars too.

After the box proved itself on Ford and Mercury cars, it spread to the luxurious ’55 Lincoln lineup where it replaced the four-speed GM Hydra-Matic. We pick up there, as efforts got underway to improve upon the original Borg-Warner design and add whiz-bang features. This entry doesn’t end up where you’d expect.

The activation method of an automatic transmission was something worth marketing in the Fifties. While levers were so boring , pushbutton automatics became all the rage. Chrysler got the jump on the other Detroit automakers when it introduced a pushbutton TorqueFlite automatic into its lineup in 1956 (we’ll have a TorqueFlite series soon). Ford decided immediately that it needed a similar feature.

Dearborn began the development of pushbutton controls of its own, which it launched under the name Keyboard Control. The feature debuted in 1957 on the Mercury line and implemented five separate buttons. Those buttons weren’t labeled how you’d expect: The longest button was at the top of the control panel as Drive. Underneath, the four smaller buttons were Brake (park), Neutral Start (neutral), Hill Control (low), and Reverse.

Those fun names lasted on Mercury cars for exactly one model year. The Keyboard Control was reworked for 1958 and renamed to Multi-Drive Keyboard Control. New labels appeared on the buttons, which then numbered six. Drive was split into Performance and Cruising, while the Park button became a lever that moved forward and backward. When pushed in the car was in park, and the buttons were locked from activation until the lever was pulled back out.

Both versions of the pushbutton automatic were a bit of a gimmick and did not prove all that popular with consumers. The system went away after 1958, and in 1959 Mercury vehicles were equipped with a ho-hum column gear selector.

While bewildered consumers pressed buttons in the Mercury showroom, transmission development carried on at Ford. The Ford-O-Matic was used as a starting point for two new transmissions Ford on their own. The company needed more versions of the three-speed as domestic passenger vehicles, in general, grew larger, sprouted fins, and carried ever greater quantities of heavy chrome.

The larger bejeweled cars weighed more and required bigger engines to push them across the country. But consumers wanted more than adequate power; the latter half of the Fifties was the unofficial start of the horsepower race in Detroit. More horses and more torque meant a need for a tougher transmission.

What Ford developed on the basis of the Ford-O-Matic were its MX and FX versions. The MX was the larger transmission, while the FX was smaller. Still three-speed automatics, both versions used the same planetary gearset as the original F-O-M but relocated the transmission’s pump from the rear to the front of the box. The MX and FX also carried a new valve body that allowed them to start in first gear in drive, rather than second.

The larger MX was destined for use in the powerful V8 vehicles from Lincoln, Mercury, and higher-end Ford cars. All MX boxes were built at Livonia Transmission (1952-present) in Michigan. FX was used only in Ford and Mercury models, and mostly in midrange offerings. The FX was made in the Fairfax Transmission plant in Cincinnati, alongside the then-dated Ford-O-Matic.

The new transmissions’ capability to start in first gear posed a branding problem for the old Ford-O-Matic. While it was technically also a three-speed, it differed in that it didn’t start in first gear like the FX and MX. Ford decided to market it as a two-speed after FX and MX debuted, which surely confused some existing owners who considered their cars a three-speed prior to 1958. Further, both new versions of the transmission were marketed under a new family name: Cruise-O-Matic.

But that wasn’t enough naming confusion, as a new version of the Ford-O-Matic arrived for the ’59 model year. It was a simpler version of the original Ford-O-Matic and used a torque converter with a compound planetary gear set. There was a multi-disc clutch at the front that handled high gear, while a band on the clutch drum handled low gear, and a band on the rear gear drum created reverse. The simplified two-speed was offered only on select Ford and Mercury models, as well as Edsel.

The world of automatic transmissions stayed in stasis at Ford for the next few years with the gen-two Ford-O-Matic, and MX and FX three-speed Cruise-O-Matics sufficient for all of the Blue Oval’s passenger cars. Elsewhere in the world, other nations were also wading into the waters of the automatic. But instead of suffering through the development of their own transmission, they stole Ford’s. Let’s talk about the Soviet Union and GAZ.

Ford Fairlane & Fairlane 500 – 1958

Gorkovsky Avtomobilny Zavod (GAZ) did have a legitimate relationship with Ford in the Twenties. In 1929 as The Great Depression approached, Ford contracted with GAZ: The brand new Russian company was to build the Model A under license. Ford supplied the engineering documents to GAZ, who set to work. The contract was via the USSR’s international commerce division, called Amtorg Trading Corporation (1924-1998). Amtorg was the first business presence the USSR had in the United States, and it was headquartered in New York City.

While Amtorg was contracted with Ford, it also contracted with Albert Kahn’s architectural firm. Kahn designed many Ford plants but was struggling for American business during the Depression. Kahn worked for Amtorg and cooperated via the company with Ford to design the very first GAZ plant in the USSR, at Niznij Novogrod. They were going to build Ford cars anyway, why not?

After cooperation with Amtorg began, Kahn helped start a government office in Moscow to help with the development of Russian architects and engineers. The office, Gosproektstroi, worked specifically with regard to widespread factory design in the established Ford and Kahn models. Top ranking staff from Kahn’s firm moved to Moscow to work at Gosproektstroi. The office was in charge of the standardization of building construction across the USSR. This activity did not go down well with many people in the United States, who quickly accused Kahn of supporting communism.

The deal with Amtorg and the USSR office didn’t last long though, as the GAZ factory was opened in November 1930, and Kahn’s contract with Amtorg ended in 1932. The first GAZ was the A – a near copy of the Model A, which then was developed into the AA pickup truck. Cooperation between GAZ and Ford lasted through 1935, and one wonders how many calls of communistic support were directed at Dearborn.

Some 20 years later, it was no surprise that when GAZ needed an automatic transmission an examination of Ford products was at the top of their to-do list. By then GAZ was among the most highly regarded automakers in Russia, with a full lineup that included executive and luxury cars for high-ranking members of the politburo, as well as off-road vehicles and trucks of varying duties. We’ll pick up our story with the GAZ translation of the Ford-O-Matic next time.

[Images: Ford]

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Join the conversation

I really like that '56 Mercury brochure. I'd never seen those cars before. It's too bad uglification took hold after that model year. I used to think I wanted the '56 Crown Victoria in high school. That was in 1973. I never found one but I was offered a '55 Bel-Aire but decided against it. It was a 4dr sedan with a six and Powerglide. It would have been a good one.

Latest auto news, reviews, editorials and podcasts

With older articles mixed in at random. Our calendar is an ungodly mess.

Latest Car Reviews

Drive Notes: 2024 Ford Maverick Hybrid XLT

2024 Hyundai Elantra N Review – Tightening Up

2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5 N Review – Shockingly Spicy

Drive Notes: 2024 Kia Telluride SX-Prestige X-Line

Drive Notes: 2024 Nissan Versa SR

Drive Notes: 2024 BMW i5 M60 xDrive

Drive Notes: 2023 Ford F-150 Tremor

Latest product reviews.

Best Amazon Prime Day Deals for TTAC Readers

TTAC Video of the Week: Looking Back on NASCAR Invading LeMans

Here’s How To Get the Best Deal on Winter Tires Right Now

Best Power Inverters for Your Car: Plugging Away

Best Sunshades for the Car: Where the Sun Don't Shine

Recent comments.

• CrackedLCD This might be the first time I've ever seen a B5 Passat wagon that was not a TDI. These things are rare as hen's teeth where I live but when I do see one, it's always a diesel. I imagine they're the "you take this from me when I die or run out of money for repairs" kind of vehicle with loyal (and poor) owners.
• Wjtinfwb Tennessee is a Right to Work state. The union is free to attempt to organize and the workers are free to vote Yay or Nay. While Right to Work allows the Union to organize, it precludes mandating membership or mandatory union dues paid by all employees. Membership and Dues are strictly voluntary. VW's leverage is that Right to Work also allows the employer to replace striking workers to keep a facility running. If the UAW struck VW, they could begin negotiation but the union would not have as strong a hand as they did with the Big 3 and certainly not the Michigan facilities as Michigan repealed its Right to Work law. Also, workers can choose to not join the union, not pay dues and if the union secures better compensation or conditions, those non-participatory workers receive the benefits without the membership or dues expense. Sometimes that leads to it not being worth the Union's trouble to represent a workforce if there are not enough members paying dues to generate the income for the Union for it to make financial sense. And striking VW doesn't have the same impact as string Ford or GM as the VW output from the Chattanooga plant is about how many F-150's as Ford makes in a few days. Going to be interesting to watch how this works out in a state with a level playing field.
• Ted Lulis Head gaskets and Toyota putting my kids through college👍️
• Leonard Ostrander Plants don't unionize. People do, and yes, of course the workers should organize.
• Jalop1991 Here's something EVangelists don't want to talk about, and why range is important: battery warranties, by industry standard, specify that nothing's wrong with the battery, and they won't replace it, as long as it is able to carry 70% or more of its specified capacity.So you need a lot of day 1 capacity so that down the road, when you're at 70% capacity with a "fully functioning, no problem" car, you're not stuck in used Nissan Leaf territory."Nothing to see here, move along."There's also the question of whether any factory battery warranty survives past the original new car owner. So it's prudent of any second owner to ask that question specifically, and absent any direct written warranty, assume that the second and subsequent owners own any battery problems that may arise.And given that the batteries are a HUGE expense, much more so than an ICE, such exposure is equally huge."Nothing to see here, move along."

You may also be interested in

Used Car of the Day: 2001 Ford Mustang Bullitt

Hertz CEO Leaves After Buying 100,000 Teslas

Subaru Prices 2025 Legacy, Outback

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part VI)

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part IV)

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part I)

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part V)

Abandoned History: Ford's Cruise-O-Matic and the C Family of Automatic Transmissions (Part III)

QOTD: Do You Have an Accident-Prone Road in Your Neighborhood?

Used Car of the Day: 1992 Volvo 940 GL Sedan

Mitsubishi and Nissan Pairing Up On New Electric and Hybrids for U.S. Market

Driving Dystopia: Judge Dismisses Automotive Privacy Lawsuit

Buick Dealerships Taking Buyouts, EV Sales Program Rejected By 47 Percent

Pushing Porsche's New Electric Racer to the Limit in the Arctic

Ineos Announced Its Third Off-Roader and This One Is Electrified

Tesla Cybertruck Specs Allegedly Leaked Ahead of Late November Reveal

QOTD: What's The Best Song About Driving?

Rumor: Rivian Readying Wheelie-Popping Performance Variant

Car reviews by make.

• Mercedes-Benz

Do It Yourself Ford Projects

Everything You Want to Know About Ford C4 and C6 Transmissions

Ford had a fundamental challenge to its direction and future in the late 1950s—how to shed a stodgy image and dated technology. This effort began with a new generation of skirted-block FE-series V-8 engines in 1958. In 1960, Ford introduced its lightweight-iron Falcon and Comet sixes. The 90-degree Fairlane small-block V-8s followed in 1962. Prior to 1960, Ford cars and trucks were burdened with outdated, BorgWarner-designed cast-iron MX and FX automatic transmissions known as Ford-O-Matics, Merc- O-Matics, and Cruise- O-Matics. The MX was a large-case automatic and the FX was small. Although these transmissions were rugged and dependable, they were heavy, complex, and not easily adapted to performance applications. This is when Ford engineers developed lightweight aluminum-case automatic transmissions for an exciting lineup of automobiles that arrived in the 1960s.

The 3-speed C4 Cruise-Omatic was introduced just in time for the 1964 model year. The 1964–1966 C4 was known as the Dual-Range Cruise-O-Matic due to its dual-range shift pattern, which included two driving ranges based on shifter position. For 1967, the C4 went to a more conventional P-R-ND- 2-1 pattern and a different valve body. This C4 Dual-Range is an early V-8 unit with a five-bolt bellhousing. The B intermediate servo cover indicates mismatched parts because the B servo is for six cylinder engines. Expect to see all kinds of mismatched transmissions.

This Tech Tip is From the Full Book, HOW TO REBUILD & MODIFY FORD C4 & C6 AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS . For a comprehensive guide on this entire subject you can visit this link:

Learn more about this book here.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Please feel free to share this post on Facebook / Twitter / Google+ or any automotive Forums or blogs you read. You can use the social sharing buttons to the left, or copy and paste the website link: https://www.diyford.com/everything-you-want-to-know-about-ford-c4-and-c6-transmissions/

When Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet were introduced in 1960, they were available with a new lightweight Ford-O-Matic 2-speed transmission. It was designed and manufactured by BorgWarner for new-generation gray-wall-iron straight-6 and small V-8s. What made the little Ford-O-Matic different than its predecessors was its aluminum case and steel hard parts inside and out. In early applications, the Ford-O-Matic transferred heat to the atmosphere via the torque converter and cooling vents in the bellhousing, instead of using fluid as coolant and a transmission cooler in the radiator. Later versions had a transmission fluid cooler in the radiator.

The Ford-O-Matic and Merc-O-Matic were available behind the 144-, 170-, and 200-ci straight-6 engines, along with the 221- and 260-ci V-8s, which came later in 1962. The Ford-O Matic/Merc-O-Matic had a case-fill dipstick tube. Bell-housing and main case were cast as one to reduce weight and reduce the likelihood of leakage. At first glance, the 2-speed automatic looks like a cast aluminum FX or MX case.

Ford took what it learned from the 2-speed BorgWarner automatic and applied it to the C4 3-speed Cruise-O-Matic that arrived for the 1964 model year. The C4 was produced at Ford’s Sharonville, Ohio, transmission plant for its entire production life through 1981 and was the first automatic transmission Ford designed and built. The C4 employed a new state-of-the-art Simpson compound planetary gear set, which became an industry-standard in the years to follow. The C4 got its name from the model year that it entered production: “C” for the 1960s decade and “4” for the year, 1964. This naming practice didn’t last long—witness transmissions to follow like the C3 in the 1970s and C5 in the 1980s.

This is the C4 Dual-Range shift pattern for 1964–1966, with a large green dot for normal drive (1-2-3 upshifts) and a smaller dot for second gear only (driving on snow and ice). Too many motorists got this wrong and drove on the small dot, doing extensive transmission damage. For the 1966 model year only, the C6 had this same shift pattern.

Beginning in 1967, Ford dropped the Dual-Range shift pattern for this traditional P-R-N-D-2-1 pattern and used a new name—Select-Shift. The shifter is placed at “2” for special driving conditions such as snow and ice, otherwise “D” for normal 1-2-3 upshifts. Both the C4 and C6 went to this shift pattern and name in 1967.

From 1964 to 1966 the C4 was called the Dual-Range Cruise-OMatic— known among enthusiasts as the Green Dot transmission. The C4 Dual-Range is equipped with a valve body that allows a driver to start out in second gear on snow and ice with a 2-3 upshift, which is the small dot (off detent next to neutral) on the indicator. The larger green dot at the detent next to “L” enables you to start out in first gear and go through a normal 1-2-3 upshift program.

Ford called its C4 the Cruise- O-Matic while Mercury called its C4 the Merc-O-Matic. It is important to note “Cruise-O-Matic” was a broad marketing name that applied to Ford automatic transmissions of the mid-1960s era. Beginning in 1967, Cruise- O-Matic was dropped and the name “Select-Shift” was used for all Ford automatics.

For one model year only—1964— the C4 had a five-bolt bellhousing for V-8s only. In August 1964, the C4 and the V-8s it was mated to were fitted with a larger six-bolt bellhousing to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness.

For 1967, Ford did away with the Green Dot Dual-Range C4. Instead, it used a redesigned valve body offering a P-R-N-D-2-1 shift pattern known as Select-Shift. This valve body was used from 1967 to 1969. A redesigned C4 valve body and transmission case came along in 1970, which was used for the C4’s production life through 1981. In Drive, the C4 shifts the same as the Dual-Range at the large green dot with a normal 1-2-3 upshift program and the same gear ratios throughout. If you want to start out in low gear on snow and ice or to creep along in slow traffic, all you have to do is place the shifter in “2” (second gear) for controlled starts and no upshift.

As the C4 evolved, other design changes were introduced. There were C4 transmissions with pan-fill dipstick tubes (blended case and bell-housing with 164-tooth flex-plates). Most C4s were case-fill (notched case and bell-housing with 157-, or 148-tooth flex-plates). Pan-fill C4 transmissions with 164-tooth flex-plates and blended bellhousings were designed for full-size car and truck applications and are not recommended for compacts and intermediates because they just don’t fit.

The 148-tooth bell and flex-plate were designed specifically for Mustang II and Pinto/Bobcat/Capri with small transmission tunnels and are very hard to locate these days. There was also a version of the C4 produced with the 385-series (429/460) big-block bell-housing bolt pattern factory installed behind the 351M and 400M raised-deck Cleveland small-blocks in the 1970s. The 351/400M C4 is extremely rare because so few were produced.

The pan-fill C4 really is more about strength for heavy-duty applications like full-size cars and trucks than anything else because the bell-housing bolts to the case outside the pump housing. Case-fill C4 transmissions are light-duty; the bell-housing bolts to the front pump instead of the main case.

The 1964–1969 C4 input shaft and clutch hub size was .788 inch with a 24-spline on both ends. In 1970, Ford gave the C4 a larger input shaft and clutch hub measuring .839 inch with 26 splines on both ends for improved durability. From 1971 to 1982, the C4 had a split-spline count. It had a .839-inch input shaft with a 26/24-spline configuration, meaning a 26-spline at the torque converter and a 24-spline at the clutch hub.

C4 valve body variations are important to note because they’re significant to your transmission building project. At this time, I’m aware of at least four different types of C4 valve bodies and I suspect there are more out there. For 1964–1966, there’s the Dual-Range/ Green Dot valve body. At a glance, the Dual-Range valve body looks identical to 1967–1969. Internally, it has different valving and shift programming.

There’s also the 1967–1969 valve body, which offers a conventional P-R-N-D-2-1 shift pattern.

The round bell, six-bolt C6 transmission for FE-series big-block V-8s. A C6 is easily identified by its one-piece bellhousing and main case design.

For 1971–1981, the C4 valve body changed significantly and does not interchange with 1964–1969 bodies due to changes in the case. Case and valve-body bolt patterns changed for 1970–1981, which is why a 1964–1969 valve body does not fit a 1970–1981 case.

In 1982 Ford introduced the C5 Select-Shift transmission, which was nothing more than a C4 with a locking torque converter to improve fuel economy. The C5 was in production between 1982 and 1986 at the Livonia, Michigan, transmission and axle plant and is not recommended as a performance transmission as received from the factory. However, C5 cases and many internal components are similar or identical to the C4, and are quite suitable for performance applications thanks to their improvements, as discussed in Chapter 4.

Like the C4, C5s were produced as both case-fill and pan-fill with either 157- or 164-tooth flexplates. None were 148-tooth flexplate. What makes the C5’s main case desirable is improved oil circuits and some improvements to case strength.

Prior to 1966, Ford FE and MEL big-blocks were fitted with cast-iron MX and FX 3-speed automatic transmissions. For 1966, Ford introduced its own heavy-duty C6 3-speed automatic transmission for high torque applications behind large displacement big-block V-8s. Although the C6 has a completely different case and internal components than the C4, it is virtually the same internally to the C4—on a larger scale for heavy-duty use.

The C6 was produced with four basic bell-housing bolt patterns over its long production life and is a very rugged transmission designed for high-power applications. The round six-bolt pattern is for FE-series big-blocks such as the 332, 352, 361, 360, 390, 406, 427, and 428 engines. There is another distinctive six-bolt bell-housing pattern for the 429/460- ci 385-series big-blocks and the 351M and 400M Cleveland-based, raised deck V-8s. This six-bolt pattern arrived in 1968 with the 429/460 big-block V-8s.

Here’s the C6 for 385-series 429/460 big-blocks as well as the 351M and 400M raised-deck small-block Cleveland V-8s, quickly identified by its finned case.

This B&M small-block C6 looks a lot like the big-block C6 unit except it’s a small-block six-bolt bell-housing design. This case is also ribbed for strength.

There’s also the small-block C6 originally intended for 351W and 351C engines, which fits any six-bolt 289/302/351W/351C small-block bell-housing bolt pattern.

Finally, there was a C6 for Diesel engines beginning in the 1980s, before the E4OD (4R100) was introduced in 1989, punctuating this transmission’s reputation for durability. Despite the E4OD’s presence, Ford continued to build the C6 until 1996 for industrial applications.

By the 1970s, Ford had a respectable lineup of modern lightweight automatic transmissions. An ironic footnote to this story is the weighty cast-iron FMX transmission, which remained in production until 1981 behind 351W small-block engines. It was an easy off-the-shelf solution for Ford, which needed the FMX to keep up with production demands when there weren’t enough C4 and C6 transmissions to go around.

How to Read Ford Part and Casting Numbers

Ford part and casting numbers can be confusing. Once you come to understand this system, reading these numbers becomes second nature. There are actually two numbering systems. Here’s how the Ford 1964–1996 part/casting numbering system looks:

C5AP – 7006 – A

(PREFIX – BASIC PART NO. – SUFFIX)

The prefix tells you when the part was originally released for production, what car line it was released for, and what engineering group it came from.

The prefix breaks down like this:

First Position (Decade)

C = 1960–1969

D = 1970–1979

E = 1980–1989

F = 1990–1999

Second Position (Year of Decade)

Then, the sequencing starts all over again at 1971 with “1,” again in 1981 with “1,” and again in 1991 at “1.”

This C5 main case (RF-E2AP- 7006-AA) is a 1982 casting. The C5 case is interchangeable with the C4 and has a better oiling circuit.

Casting numbers aren’t always easy to read. This 1975 C4 case (D5OP- 7006-AA) shows its vintage with a simple Ford casting number. Most cases have the Ford oval while others have “FoMoCo.”

Third Position (Car Line)

G = Comet, Montego, Cyclone

J = Marine and Industrial

M = Mercury

O = Fairlane, Torino

S = Thunderbird

T = Ford Truck

V = Lincoln

Z = Mustang

Basic Part Number The basic part or casting number is the same whether it is an engineering number or a service number. For example, “7006” is the basic number for all automatic transmission main cases. What you’re concerned with mostly here is the prefix, which tells you year and basic application.

The suffix indicates the change level. “A” means original status of released part. “B” indicates at least one engineering change. The entire alphabet is used except the letters “I” and “L,” which could be mistaken for the numeral 1. When Ford goes through the entire alphabet, it starts over again at AA, AB, AC, AD, and so on.

It is important to understand that part, casting, engineering, and service numbers rarely match each other. The casting number is derived from the actual casting or part, and typically does not match the part, engineering, or service numbers. Unless the casting has been revised, the basic casting number does not change. It means the number you see in the casting does not match the part number in the Ford Master Parts Catalog. And if the catalog you are using is dated, as most are, expect even more changes in your Ford dealer’s microfiche or computer when it comes to suffixes. When demand for a part falls below a predetermined level, Ford discontinues or N/Rs the part. N/R means “Not Replaced.”

Date coding works like this:

If the date code is cast into the piece, it indicates the date the piece was cast at the foundry. If the date code is stamped or inked, it indicates date of manufacture.

Written by George Reid and Republished with Permission of CarTech Inc

LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS BOOK!

If you liked this article you will LOVE the full book! Get your copy here .

332-428 Ford FE Engine Forum

• 332-428 Ford FE Engine Forum > General Discussion > 332-428 Ford FE Engine Forum >

small, medium and large case cruise-o's, and C3AE-E?

Post Feb 09, 2002 #1 2002-02-09T02:38+00:00

Post Feb 09, 2002 #2 2002-02-09T13:33+00:00

Post Feb 10, 2002 #3 2002-02-10T01:19+00:00

I was talking to a trans guy and he was telling me that there are different cruise-o-matics, but he couldn't elaborate on their differences or their applications. Can anyone fill in that info? He pointed out the differences in the oil pan gaskets, but that's about it. Also, another call out for any info on my C3AE-E block, I haven't seen it listed in any casting # lists. thanks, garrett

Post Feb 10, 2002 #4 2002-02-10T06:13+00:00

Post Feb 10, 2002 #5 2002-02-10T16:17+00:00

Post Feb 10, 2002 #6 2002-02-10T16:22+00:00

Back in 1958, when the Cruisomatic 3-speed was developed from the aging Fordomatic (cast iron three speed) of 1951-58, there were two case sizes for the new Cruisomatic tranny. From 1959-63, an all new aluminum case Fordomatic (2 speed) would define the new "economy" class of auto tranny. This ill-named tranny just causes confusion when discussing Ford transmissions. It should have been named the Economatic, or something distinctly different from the popular names. The 2-speed Fordomatic disappeared when the C4 took over the bottom-tier auto tranny duties in 1964. The big case Cruiso (which would be nicknamed MX in 1965) was specifically designed for the Lincoln, though it found lots of use in Mercury cars and some Fords. The Lincoln needed a transmission case which was structurally rigid enough to prevent undesirable resonances at certain roadspeeds. The stiffer MX case, when joined to the 1965 Lincoln emgine amd driveshaft, resonated at 59Hz. This resonance could occur at certain very high roadspeeds, but the amplitude of the resonant stress was low enough that it did not cause fatigue failures. Selecting the more flexible "small box" FX (also nicknamed in 1965) for a Lincoln would have brought the resonant frequency of the combo down to more commonly attained roadspeeds. This would have apparently created drivability and reliability issues. Side note: Larger diameter driveshafts, such as the .065" wall 3-3/4" diameter shaft introduced in 1966, are stiffer and thus resonate at higher roadspeeds. The goal is to design an engine/trans/driveshaft combo that resonates at speeds higher than the terminal (top) speed of the vehicle. Significant note: The C6 transmission was die-cast with an integral bellhousing to "stiffen up" the entire case assembly, thus increasing the resonant frequency of the transmission-portion of the engine/trans/driveshaft assembly, and thus raising the speed at which drivetrain resonance occurs. For instance: Drivetrain resonance occurred at 142mph in a stock-geared 1966 Lincoln 462 with the C6 tranny and new-for-1966 3-3/4" diameter driveshaft. I presently suspect the cast iron tail in the 428PI and CJ cars might have been there to stiffen-up the drivetrain, in order to bring the resonant frequency above that of the terminal raod speed. Maybe it was just for strength, but I sorta doubt it now that I've read a little about drivetrain resonance, as it relates to metal fatigue and driving comfort. The FX tranny of 1958-66 was basically a smaller-case version of the MX. It would find use in smaller engines and smaller cars than Lincoln offered. Since the engines and cars were smaller (less mass), the resonant frequencies of the drivetrains were higher, which mean't resonance would not be a problem at normally attained roadspeeds. When the C6 showed up in 1966, it was intended to obsolete the MX in the Lincoln, as well as provide service in smaller vehicles while using one basic case design. The FMX was a slightly redesigned FX. It got extra ribs to stiffen the case, and some other changes. I believe the FMX was created to define a half-way step between the C4 and C6 tranny. I don't yet know whether the MX hung around long after the C6 became available, nor do I know whether the FX stuck around after the FMX arrived in 1967. I suspect the MX was around for at least a few more years, but suspect the last FX may have been made in 1966. The FMX was still popular in 1980, so there is a lot for me to learn on the topic. JMO, Shoe.

Post Feb 11, 2002 #7 2002-02-11T03:33+00:00

Choose Display Mode

• Скидки дня
• Справка и помощь
• Адрес доставки Идет загрузка... Ошибка: повторите попытку ОК
• Продажи
• Список отслеживания Развернуть список отслеживаемых товаров Идет загрузка... Войдите в систему , чтобы просмотреть свои сведения о пользователе
• Краткий обзор
• Недавно просмотренные
• Ставки/предложения
• Список отслеживания
• История покупок
• Купить опять
• Объявления о товарах
• Сохраненные запросы поиска
• Сохраненные продавцы
• Сообщения
• Уведомление
• Развернуть корзину Идет загрузка... Произошла ошибка. Чтобы узнать подробнее, посмотрите корзину.

Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.

Refresh your browser window to try again.

C4 transmission will not shift into 3rd

• Add to quote

UPDATE: The car has decided that it will shift just fine now. It shifted into third while i was going down the road just under 40mph and since then it has continued to shift normally. Why must my car torment me so. Hi everyone, My automatic C4 transmission on my 65 mustang with a 3.3 is not shifting into 3rd. initially I checked the vacuum lines and realized that the rubber tube connecting the vacuum line to the vacuum modulator had disconnected entirely. I also noticed that the vacuum line was not secured by the little bracket that bolts onto the transmission so I connected that and cut the tube down a little bit and put it back on and all was well the car started shifting again. that was about 4 days ago. Yesterday I pulled over to get gas and when I got back on the road it wasn't shifting again. I got under the car and verified that the rubber tube was still firmly on the vacuum modulator. Is the vacuum modulator bad? My transmission fluid level has not gone down and is still pink. What should I look for?  

The guy's who took my transmission out last (1 year ago) put a tiny bit more fluid than what was needed but it has been running smooth until now. The hoses on both ends of the hardline are on firmly and they are both pretty new. It really will not shift into 3rd at all, I have tried taking the speed up to get it to shift and it just wouldn't budge. If the modulator was broken would it be sucking transmission fluid into the intake manifold or are there other noticeable ways that a broken modulator can show itself (apart from not shifting)?  

If it's shifting 1-2 but not into 3 then I'd be suspecting a sticking governor. If it's not shifting at all, I'd verify the vacuum hoses are all connected, including at the intake manifold/spacer plate and the hard line isn't plugged.  

how could the hardline get plugged, also where is the governor.  

Check the vacuum by connecting a vacuum gauge in the line to the modulator.  

Rona_65 said: Hi everyone, My automatic C4 transmission on my 65 mustang with a 3.3 is not shifting into 3rd. initially I checked the vacuum lines and realized that the rubber tube connecting the vacuum line to the vacuum modulator had disconnected entirely. I also noticed that the vacuum line was not secured by the little bracket that bolts onto the transmission so I connected that and cut the tube down a little bit and put it back on and all was well the car started shifting again. that was about 4 days ago. Yesterday I pulled over to get gas and when I got back on the road it wasn't shifting again. I got under the car and verified that the rubber tube was still firmly on the vacuum modulator. Is the vacuum modulator bad? My transmission fluid level has not gone down and is still pink. What should I look for? Click to expand...

• ?            
• 89.8K members

Top Contributors this Month

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• Model Specific Forums
• Galaxie Pages

Cruise O Matic leaking

• Add to quote

Dropped the pan and changed filter and gasket. Now I realize that the leak is coming from a linkage right above the pan. Any one know if the tranny has to be dropped to get to that one? Thanks  

its a simple fix in place, just messy...drip, drip, drip........ drop pan, valvebody... there's two seals selector shaft seal and o-ring seal on kickdown Ford-O-Matic and Cruise-O-Matic Transmissions Ford-O-Matic and Cruise-O-Matic Transmissions  

Wow!I have been looking for those diagrams online for six months. Thanks. I have never been a transmission guy, is the valve body complicated to pull?  

I agree with ShotRod. The hardest part is holding the detent ball against the detent spring, while trying to get the detent lever back on. There isn't much room to get your fingers up in there, and it is slippery because of the transmission fluid. When I did it, it took several tries, and I thought I wasn't going to be able to get it, but after several attempts, and some determination, it finally went back in. Then get the nut back on, and you are home free.  

Almost need one more hand with that thing and no room for it under the car!  

• ?            
• 951.9K posts
• 72.5K members

Top Contributors this Month