borg warner 35 tech question
John McKenzie
spare you all).
I've been fucking around with these transmissions, to get one to last
longer behind a hemi. It's not massively modded, but does heaps of
towing.
I tend to break the low/reverse band, and the usual mod to make them
last longer is to place a small shim on the primary regulator spring,
for higher line pressure. Obviously in my case that would only make it
worse.
I'm currently looking at with drilling a tiny hole in the servo piston
(or sleeving the supply port) so that it won't engage as quickly, ore
hold as hard. It's never ever been close to slipping whilst in reverse,
even with a car on a tandem trailer, it always just lets go when it's
shifted in. I hae the idle lower than a politicians integrity, so I
can't do much else. I'm hoping that this would enable me to shim the
regulator, so the clutches engaged a bit quicker in the forward gears
(well primarily in the shift from 2 to 3), but it will balance out, or
go further to reduce the low/re band engagement harshness.
Any tips in this regard (someone mentioned once at a swap meet that
there's a link or valve you can leave off a bw35 to lower the engagement
of that band, it's called the reverse something, but I'm fucked if I can
figure what they were talking about they referred to it as being near
the kickdown link/lever where the cable attaches ) anmyone?
At the same time, a few people on the moparmarket.com forums are
pursuing using one for drag racing. They are trying to make one full
manual. I had a theory (and I don't understand the valve body circuitry
enough to be sure on this) that if I shimmed the 1-2 and 2-3 shift
valves in the 'upshift' setting, like would happen when pressure pushed
the valves and compressed the springs, that then it would always be in 3
when the shifter is in 3 or drive, and always be in 2nd when the lever
is in 2. But I have a feeling that doing it this way will prevent the
trans from being able to be shifted into first. I have a suspicion it
would be in 2nd when the lever was shifter to 1 or L.
Anyone able to help on how to mod the valve body (or will it work in all
three gears if I do the above mod)
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com ab...@earthlink.com frau...@psinet.com
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost
$LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost
ro...@mailloop.com pres...@whitehouse.gov vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov
ab...@iprimus.com.au ab...@cia.gov ab...@fbi.gov ab...@asio.gov.au
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au
atec77
@byplane.com Jason James
ideal for traffic light to traffic light change free (read no punishment to
clutches/bands) driving.
My old FMX is worn. 2-3 is OK, but 1-2 is a bit neck-snappy. The auto-trans
guy said adjusing the 1-2 would fuck-up the 2-3,...so I just ease it off the
mark (if on petrol) in 2nd now (read floor it on LPG)
Jason
"atec77" <"atec77(byebye)"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40487CEA...@hotmail.com...
John McKenzie
>
> you know with a little work you can install a c4 ?. ( of a 6)
any more details? I'm listenin (well reading) I'm ass-uming it uses the
250 ford version, or a bastardised version of that and perhaps a ford
bw35 bellhousing?
John McKenzie
>
> Why not an FMX
technically that is a bw trans (known as the fx mx by borgwarner afaik)
atec77
Jason James wrote:
>
> Why not an FMX,...comes std with manual 2nd,..which for a torquey motor is
> ideal for traffic light to traffic light change free (read no punishment to
> clutches/bands) driving.
c4 is physically a much better fit than the fmx , and fmx uses more
power to drive the internals ,
atec77
the prop shaft , slight change to the xmember , I don't have detail Im
afraid but I know you can work it out , big choice huh ?.
spend heaps on an inherently "soft' auto or add a c4 , bell housing and
converter , mounts and shaft , how hard can it be ?
you could add a manual but like me you like the easy option for
comfort.
Martin
them(normal never ajusted)
@byplane.com Jason James
"John McKenzie" <jm...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:4048D7...@alphalink.com.au...
> Jason James wrote:
> >
> > Why not an FMX
>
> technically that is a bw trans (known as the fx mx by borgwarner afaik)
>
>
> --
> John McKenzie
It maybe John, but it has an iron case plus it doesn't sound like a BW35. By
that I mean 1st gear is inaudible (BW whine) and the 1-2 change is silent,
while BW make that 'wheee-up' sound. I tend to think as they were fitted to
GT Falcons (XT-X-Y) they are a beefier box.
Parts for reconning are still prolific I'm told.
Jason
Noddy
> hey to the few people who might read this (I've made a list but will
> spare you all).
>
> I've been fucking around with these transmissions, to get one to last
> longer behind a hemi. It's not massively modded, but does heaps of
> towing.
<snip>
Hey John,
I have no experience in modifying the 35 in the manner to which you're
talking about, so I can't offer any advice to help you with that. However,
what I *would* suggest is that if you could possibly substitute a C4 for the
35, then that would be a far better choice offering a significant
reliability upgrade.
The only thing is that 6 cylinder C4's were only ever available in Falcons
from XA to XD, so they're not exactly growing on trees these days. As to
converting a V8 box for 6 cylinder use, I have no idea....
BW35's are funny boxes really. They're not really known for their strength
(as you're finding out), but I've had a couple that have had the shit abused
out of them for a couple of hundred thousand km's and they're *still* going.
Fuck knows why...
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Jason James" <flyhi @byplane.com> wrote in message
news:WU22c.88655$Wa.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Why not an FMX,...comes std with manual 2nd,..which for a torquey motor is
> ideal for traffic light to traffic light change free (read no punishment
to
> clutches/bands) driving.
FMX's are great boxes, and are quite tough. The only trouble is that they're
also a horsepower hog, and will take 20 horses away from any engine compared
to a C4...
Regards,
Noddy.
The Interceptor
they're
> also a horsepower hog, and will take 20 horses away from any engine
compared
> to a C4...
>
> Regards,
> Noddy.
Is that so? That being the case, I'm glad I'd replaced the C4 in my XA with
another C4, rather than using the old FMX sitting behind the shed. I must
say that the FMX seems to be a sweeter shifting unit than the C4.
Brett
blinky
Also the 6cyl C series transmission is a C9 NOT a C4
"Noddy" <dg4...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4049447d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
atec77
blinky wrote:
>
> Why not just fit a torqueflite 904 trans
> Also the 6cyl C series transmission is a C9 NOT a C4
no for a short period some c4 transmission were fitted to non xflow
ford falcons , I had one in my van and also the xb GS I ran for years
...
the 904 costs how much ?.
a good c4 with conversion wont be more than a couple of hundred.
John McKenzie
>
> It maybe John, but it has an iron case plus it doesn't sound like a BW35. By
> that I mean 1st gear is inaudible (BW whine) and the 1-2 change is silent,
> while BW make that 'wheee-up' sound.
For sure. If I came across as implying that the fmx and bw35 are one and
the same, it was unintentional.
I tend to think as they were fitted to
> GT Falcons (XT-X-Y) they are a beefier box.
Agreed. bw (no secret) have made a bunch of auto transmissions. They
also make bands and other parts for gm transmissions for example.
I was mainly bringing it up for trivia's sake, as not everyone would
know their origin.
> Parts for reconning are still prolific I'm told.
they are for the bw 35 too, and dirt cheap. kind of a relief considering
they don't last forever. (it's been said, and I agree totally) that they
are a decent, reliable and relatively hassle free trans. It's just that
putting them behind a hemi 6, esp one that tows a lot, is just asking
too much of them. they should never have been put behind them imo, and
one can't blame the trans for an inappropriate application.
I'm going t/flite (actually have a fully rebuilt, 'beefed up' 904 and
new dominator convertor (made especially to handle endless towing, and
the eventual addition of a turbo). Only cash (adn a spare registered
car) are holding things up, but I picked up some work this weekend, and
a big car resto job with a friend, so it's 'on' again.
I'm told the fmx is (in stock vs stock form) the quickest shifting auto
ever offered in a ford (not sure about post EA transmissions). Doesn't
sound an unreasonable claim.
John McKenzie
>
> are they old BW,I use to find to much band clearance whould break
> them(normal never ajusted)
It certainly wouldn't help as it would give the drum a 'run up' to jolt
or grind away at the band and the servo lever too.
But I've been hardcore about maintenance, esp since I do so much towing.
The thing is, too, the band I keep braking isn't used in forward gears
(well if you select 1st, it will to allow engine braking, whereas in D,
when it is in 1st, the one way clutch allows the power engagement (but
freewheels on deceleration) only in reverse (and maybe in p when it's
started, I read that somewhere) if the band is applied in park, then it
would mean when the car is started, being on lpg, it takes about 1 inch
of acc pedal being held to start instantly. If it revs up a fraction,
gets line pressure and the low/rev band engages, this could possibly be
a major factor. If it is, then this might have been the mod that the guy
was talking about (to stop it engaging in park, or perhaps to alter
delete the item, so that it does still engage, but VERY gently) . I'll
have to keep digging.
Thanks for the reply, it actually triggered my memory a bit, recalling
the stuff above, and might help me track down exactly what they were
referring to.
Noddy
"blinky" <blink...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4049...@news.alphalink.com.au...
> Why not just fit a torqueflite 904 trans
Because they're probably expensive and hard to get.
> Also the 6cyl C series transmission is a C9 NOT a C4
Actually, no it ain't.
If you want to get technical, the C4, C5, C9 and C10 transmissions all look
very much alike, and are named acording to the year they were first
produced, not the application they were used for. In Ford speak, "C" is the
code for auto, and the number represents the year of the 1960's the box was
first introduced.
Hence, a "C4" first saw use in 1963, a C5 in '64, a C9 in '68 and a C10 in
'69.
As for their use, C4's *and* C9's both saw duty behind 6 cylinder and 289 &
302 Windsor powered vehicles. C10's saw service in 4 barrel equipped
Clevelands, and C5's were a truck auto intended for F series units.
Suffice to say, if you want to find an original C4 as factory fitted to a 6
Cylinder Falcon, they're out there....
Regards,
Noddy.
The Interceptor
> ever offered in a ford (not sure about post EA transmissions). Doesn't
> sound an unreasonable claim.
>
>
> --
> John McKenzie
My experience with FMXs, C4s and electronic 4 speeds (BTR I think?) suggests
that claim is entirely valid. I've always found FMXs to be a sweet thing,
if not entirely lightweight.
Brett
John McKenzie
>
> blinky wrote:
> >
> > Why not just fit a torqueflite 904 trans
> > Also the 6cyl C series transmission is a C9 NOT a C4
>
> no for a short period some c4 transmission were fitted to non xflow
> ford falcons , I had one in my van and also the xb GS I ran for years
> ...
> the 904 costs how much ?.
For a modest output engine (say 400 fy lbs tops) sbout 1500. That would
cover getting the later planetaries (that have an extra one) and running
4 clutch packs front and rear, a valvebody modiciation kit, and lastly a
torque convertor to suit. (top quality one)
So they come in around the price you'd pay for a fully prepped trimatic
(and are somewhat stronger). Going beyond that level, a 727 is needed
(or at least sensible) and again for the mods above, about $1500
(allowing for inflation etc). You can get them to cope as well as a
powerglide, but they tend to cost more in the long run.
bw35 on the other hand (and remembering I have the 904 waiting to get
out of jail and into the car) You can get recoed around the $350 mark,
or for about $80 for the parts to diy it.
> a good c4 with conversion wont be more than a couple of hundred.
>
It's all about the context. They are looking for something that will not
cost a cent (well technically it will as a 1c coin is the perfect shim
to preload the primary regulator spring in the valve body!). It's at
least a touch reminiscent of the (just counting close friends) 10 or so
people who refused to open up their motor and alter compression if and
by whatever means necessary. And the engine was toast inside a month on
all of them if I recall. Whilst I don't personally see a bellhousing
weld and redrill as being difficult, it's faqir to say that such things
are becoming extinct these days.