"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article >, Cory Dunkle wrote:
> >>
> >>>Driving at 85 MPH vs 70 MPH only reduced my mileage by .3 MPG. So take
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>you speed kills freaks and tree huggers. Anyhow...
> >>>
> >>>This is in my '68 Galaxie 500 with a 302, FMX, and 2.80:1 gears.
> >>
> >>2.80 is good milage axle. Anyways.... if you're going to be going over
70
> >>regularly and it's not on an empty interstate I suggest you upgrade the
> >>braking system on that car.
> >
> >
> > I'm thinking I may do just as well with a 3.25 or 3.50 as it would get
my
> > RPM where the motor is more efficient but at a lower speed that I
normally
> > travel on local trips. Anyhow, the transmission slips on the 2-3 shift
until
> > warmed up when the weather is below freezing. So when it goes I'm gonna
> > upgrade to an AOD for mileage and put something in the neighborhood of
> > 3.50:1 - 4.11:1 gears out back. Should give me a slightly better final
drive
> > for lower RPM and give much better acceleration with that little 302. I
may
> > even see an increase in around town mileage. Anyhow, for the time being
I
> > just shift manually for the first 2-3 minutes and when I go to 3rd I let
go
> > of the gas while it shifts so it doesn't slip. Seems to be a problem FMX
> > transmission gets after a while. My '67 had the same problem though it
> > developed it around 200,000 miles, the '68 has about 113,000 miles, but
then
> > again when my uncle drove it he never put fluids in it or anything.
>
> Unless you really feel the need for the OD, I'd keep the FMX. AFAIK
> it's closely related to the old Ford-O-Matic and therefore the
> Borg-Warner automatic that Studebaker used from 56-64, and that tranny
> is one of the most underrated units out there - very durable, reliable,
> and basically abusable. I know a guy that was pumping over 600 RWHP
> through a Powershift (basically a fancied up HD Flightomatic) and
> ditched it for a THM400 because everyone told him it would be
> stronger... and promptly blew the THM400... I'm really not sure what
> the reliability of a good AOD is, but I seriously doubt it's as
> cast-iron, dead-nuts reliable as the FMX/Ford-O-Matic/Flightomatic.

The FMX can definitely take more abuse than the AOD (and yes, it is very
similar to the old Borg-Warner, was based on that design). Also not fancy TV
linkage to worry about getting out of adjustement and burning up the
overdrive band. The FMX is a heavy trans that robs a lot of power though.
I've got a heavy car with a small engine, so a lighter more efficient
transmission may do me better. I think the old FMX still has a good 50k-100k
left in her though. Shifts very nicely when it above freezing or it gets
warmed up. I just figgure if I'm gonna be shelling out for a new tranny I
may as well get one that will help with mileage since this car is gonna be
my daily driver for a long, long time.

> Of course, if you have a 9" rear, it's trivially easy to play with the
> rear gear ratio, and I can see the appeal of having a tranny with a
> wider gear spread. So if that's what you really want, and this car you
> think is a keeper, by all means go for it. I guess I just felt
> compelled to stand up and defend the honor of the FMX there for a second


Unfortunately I don't ahve a 9" out back... Many small block cars came with
a smaller rear which got the job done fine. As I understand it there aren't
really any option for gearing for this rear end. I know of a couple '67 and
'68 Gals in a pick'n'pull yard not far from here. At least two have 390s so
I figgure I have a good chance of finding a 9" that'll just bolt right in.
Maybe I'll get lucky and find one with a decent gear ratio. Then I can just
clean it up, put new bearings in, and be all set to go. I actually pulled a
gas tank a year or two ago from a '67 with a 390... Didn't pay much
attention to the rear end but IIRC it was a 9". Anyhow, the FMX certainly is
a good reliable transmission. The one in my '67 went to 200k before it
started slipping on the 2-3 shift when cold out.

> > As for the brakes, I generally don't drive faster than 80-85 as that's
about
> > the upper limit of what my car can do in a full-out emergency stop and
not
> > have the brakes overheat as I approach a stop. These old Gals have big
> > 2.5"x11" drums all around which stop pretty well compared to other drum
> > brake cars, like Mustangs which have tiny drums. I'm keeping my eyes
open
> > for a good disc brake donor though. It's not on the top of my list of
things
> > to do but should I come across the parts I'll probably snag them when I
have
> > the chance. Would be a nice thing to have since I do a fairly large
amount
> > of highway miles and most of the econo-boxes on the roads can stop
pretty
> > darned quickly.
> >
> > Cory
> >
>
> You may want to consider an aftermarket disc brake conversion; a lot of
> late '60s cars used 4-pot fixed calipers which work, but are expensive,
> finicky, and don't really work any *better* than a cheaper, simpler
> single or dual piston caliper (which is usually what the aftermarket
> kits have)

I've seen a few kits and they are tempting. I like the ones where I don't
have to replace the spindles or any of the steering linkage. Just bolt it on
and be done with it. Thanks for the input on the brakes, definitely
something to consider when the time comes to do the swap.