Register now to get rid of these ads!

~ Whats the length of a C4 trans? ~

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by solo_909, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. solo_909
    Joined: Apr 9, 2006
    Posts: 1,786

    solo_909
    Member

    just a quick question does anyone know the length of a C4 trans? also what was the year year these trans were used? Thanks so much
     
  2. SlowandLow63
    Joined: Sep 18, 2004
    Posts: 5,958

    SlowandLow63
    Member
    from Central NJ

    Can't remeber the length but they started in the mid 60s and ran through the 70s. Very very common. The only weirdo was the MII version.
     
  3. ohiotj
    Joined: Mar 19, 2005
    Posts: 115

    ohiotj
    Member
    from SW Ohio

    Just did a quick check on the one in my garage. Its about 30-32" long, including the bellhousing.
     
  4. rstanberry
    Joined: Dec 22, 2007
    Posts: 202

    rstanberry
    Member
    from terrell tx

  5. butch27
    Joined: Dec 10, 2004
    Posts: 2,846

    butch27
    Member

    Probably shouldn't mention it but there is a shorter one out of some pickups but they have no splined tailshaft. I had one ,just weird. Rare as hens teeth. Around 1969 pickups and vans.
     
  6. dutchtreat
    Joined: Jul 7, 2004
    Posts: 304

    dutchtreat
    Member

    The C-4 was then replaced with the C-5 which is the same trans--just set up for a lockup converter. Also the short tailshaft C-4 is a pan fill and the yoke bolts on the back. It is the shortest of the stock C-4's. However Flat O makes a short tailhousing setup for the C-4 that makes it like 18" long the shaft uses Chev 350-powerglide splines so you could use a Chevy yoke to make it work.
    By the way the MM2 C-4 uses the smallest bellhousing so if you have a tight fit it's a good way to go.
    Dutch
     
  7. solo_909
    Joined: Apr 9, 2006
    Posts: 1,786

    solo_909
    Member

    well the problem im having right now is that im using a 92 AOD out of a thunderbird and its about 2 feet and 8 inches long. the pan sits below the frame but the yoke sits at the top of the frame crossmember so the clearance is not good for the drive shaft. I also need to move the motor up and back a few inches to get the exhaust away from the master cylinder, to be able to install an oil filter without using a remote and to fit a radiator fan. but theres no way I can do this with me set up now. the angle of the motor and everything is perfect so the only way to fix this is swapping out the trans.

    does anyone have any pics of there C4 installed?
     
  8. solo_909
    Joined: Apr 9, 2006
    Posts: 1,786

    solo_909
    Member

    heres some pics of my problem with the aod

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. this is a great site for parts and specs and such

    bulkpart.com
     
  10. rstanberry
    Joined: Dec 22, 2007
    Posts: 202

    rstanberry
    Member
    from terrell tx

    I just replaced my c-4 with an aod.They are basically the same length (aod is about 1/4 inch longer overall , rear mount is farther back about an inch or so. Check the Pheonix Trans site above ,it has all the dims or Baumman Electronics site (google Baumman). The aod is a fatter case however so I had to do some floorboard surgery to get the rear mount high enough to minimize u-joint angle. Think twice before you give up on the aod. If you do any highway crusing at all the overdrive sure is nice.With a 3.50 rear I turn 1800 rpm at 70 mph. with the c-4 it was 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
     
  11. rstanberry
    Joined: Dec 22, 2007
    Posts: 202

    rstanberry
    Member
    from terrell tx

    I dont recognize the big round thing on the u-joint/drive shaft. What is it?
     
  12. solo_909
    Joined: Apr 9, 2006
    Posts: 1,786

    solo_909
    Member


    from what I understand its the dampiner
     
  13. rstanberry
    Joined: Dec 22, 2007
    Posts: 202

    rstanberry
    Member
    from terrell tx

    I just used my old driveshaft (normal type u-joints). Do you need the damper? If you did away with it would that help your problem?
     
  14. solo_909
    Joined: Apr 9, 2006
    Posts: 1,786

    solo_909
    Member


    no it still would be too high and the trans pan would still be below the frame
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.