[hheat002]

Hey...I'm kinda new at this posting thing, but I was wondering what everyone thought of this idea: I have a 66 mustang with a C6 automatic and an open 8" rearend w/ 3.23 gears in it, and a very lightly modified 289. I am considering putting in a 4.11 power-trac or eaton limited slip rear end, along with the Edelbrock RPM power package(600 cfm carb, dual plane high rise intake, and edelbrock rpm cam) and using the 165cc AFR heads. A mechanic told me that the combination would likely get me about 320 rwhp, and probably drop my 1/4 mile from 15.9 to around the mid-12's. I currently have a 600 cfm edelbrock carb and performer intake, and hedman shorty headers...i plan on going with long-tube hooker headers. Sound like a good plan? The mechanic told me that all the parts would run around 2,500, and another grand for installation of everything. Sound about right?

 

[mustangboy]

Are you sure you have a C-6 and not a C-4?The C-4 would make the car a little quicker since it takes less power to run and would give you much more header clearance...Your combo sounds good.Personally I would prefer a holley carb but that's up to you.One other thing you might want to consider would be a higher stall torque convertor to match the camshaft and help get the car off of the line quicker.

_________________
1968 mustang 306,stock ported heads,650 Holley DP,weiand xcellerator intake, Comp cams Magnum 292,[email protected] and 518L,heddman headers,4speed with a 4.11 detroit locker.13.69 at 101 mph.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: frdnut on 3/28/06 7:47am ]</font>

 

[FEandGoingBroke]

I personally never new a C-6 would fit on a 289..... Betcha it's an FMX...

 

[mikemustang289]

you'd want a different converter with that cam. What kind of car is this? I think with an auto you'd be somewhere in the neiborhood of 300 rwhp. I think you'd be lookin at high 12's if traction is good.

 

[hheat002]

You may be right...it may be a C4...but I know its from a 1970 mustang, and they had to bend a part of the sheetmetal to make it fit. If i didn't include a higher-stall converter right away, would it be a great hassle to do it in the future, and also, how much would performance suffer because of it?

 

[Beoweolf]

They make a c-6 for sbf. 351 and 302 use same bellhousing.

A few years back, a friend of mine was spending latrine loads of money having his cruisomatic (behind a 351) repaired. I talked him into ordering a C-6 from B&M when they were still a performance company. It took a few weeks to arrive and we replaced it that weeked. No muss, no fuss, no more broken parts.

Thsi was during the time when common wisdom had it that the 351 was a dog, that the best sbf was the 289.

We learned 'em! On both counts...that automatic run hard and that 351's will not only eat your Lunch, it would eat the bag and the wrappers too.

 

[mstngjoe]

They make a small bellhousing for the C6 that enables you to mount up to 289/302/351W.

 

[mustangboy]

My 1982 pickup had a 302 C-6 from the factory.

 

[FEandGoingBroke]

Hmmmm

 

[sharpshot71]

i was told that an iron case was an FMX, aluminum with bolt on bellhousing is a c-4, and aluminum case with bellhousing cast on,(all one piece) is a c-6. Going by that i had a C-6 bolted up to a 351C. I have also seen in summit magazines that u can order a c-6 for a Cleveland, which has the same pattern as the 289 correct?

 

[ckelly]

Yes - the small bell C6 will fit 289/302/351W/351C. However, their heavy internal rotating parts make them real power hogs. They can eat maybe as much as twice what a C4 will. By the time you lighten up a C6, you could have a whole C4 ready to run and likely have money left over.

If your tranny has a parting line where the bell meets the trans case and the case is aluminum, it's a C4. C6s have an all one piece case (except the tail housing IIRC). I belive that the C6 has large ribs on the back of the bell to the main case, which might require bashing in the trans tunnel for proper fit.

Sounds like your mechanic is in the ball park on the figures.

 

[hheat002]

So, whats the deal with the torque converter? If I chose to wait on that, and put install it later, or not at all, how much would that affect the performance?

 

[mustangboy]

Sounds like that cam makes reasonable low end power(supposed to start at 1500-6500) so driveability might not be too bad but it will definetly be much quicker with a higher stall.I'm no expert on automatics but I'm thinking something around 3000-3500 would work well on the street and strip.I would definetly do some research on the convertor,maybe start a seperate post.