Is there ??????

[Zapato]

I'm considering using a 69 FMX transmission, not finding much online on these. They seem to get mixed reviews. Anyone know of a good link that covers them. Sure would like some honest information without a lot of stupid drama. If that is possible.

Zap-

[gasman826]

Its kinda dicey asking a question on a forum and not getting a dose of drama.  Anyway, I'm guessing that you already have the FMX because you mentioned the year.  There is nothing wrong with an FMX.  Ford made them for years and were behind a variety of engines.  An FMX will do the job until you start hammering it.  It is over shadowed by the C6.  I never really cared for the cast steel center section and aftermarket performance parts are limited compared to the C6.  As with any automatic transmission, I think they are all way under cooled.  Add additional cooling capacity...add extra life.

[glen b henderson]

Other than weight, one of the best transmissions ford ever had. They are simple and easy to rebuild. Parts are still available and while not alot of aftermarket stuff for them, they can handle 400/500 hp in a heavy car. John runs one in the Hurricane and I don't recall him ever having a problem with it.

[bossguy]

I worked at a dealer in 1970 when I bought my first new car, a 70 Torino GT 351C 4bbl. It came with a FMX. I lamented to our tranny tech that I wished it had a C-6. He replied, when was the last time we had a FMX apart (never). How many C-6 do we do?" (lots).
I drag raced it a bit and ran mid 14's. Never had the trans apart. Drove it to 70,000 miles.

[Ford Blue blood]

The FMX in my 36 Chevy (behind a 351C) came out of a totaled 72 Ranchero in 1974.  It started running the roads in 1980 and worked like a champ until the 92 flood at the Louiseville Street Rod Nationals.  It was rebuilt by a national chain transmission shop and is still in the car today.  It has a total of 135K mile that I put on it (no idea how many were on it when it was pulled) and has never given the least hint of failing.  Even when it got flooded it worked all the way to Mobile, AL (had a fairly loud whine) where it was pulled down.

Now having said all of that....they are heavy, like to be cool and dry, don't much care for pounding but will take some and will last forever in every day use.  I'd run it....oh...I am!

[Zapato]

Gasman ,really don't mind drama its just the "they're junk responses" from people who know as little about them as I currently do. I'm really curious specially if they're as big a power hog as a C6 ? It does take some serious horsepower to run those though they are damn near bulletproof in most stock applications. I have a couple of those and in my mind they're overkill behind a mild sbf. Thanks for your response and I agree on the need for extra cooling and filtering on automatics. Never made much sense to me to run a tranny cooler into a radiator bottom tank. Sure its well protected but in a lot warmer location than ambient air flowing by.

Zap-

[Ford Blue blood]

Zap you need both the radiator cooler and an auxilary cooler.  Run the fluid through the aux first and then to the radiator.  The transmission needs to be kept dry, running only an aux cooled during cold/cool weather will never drive the moisture out of the fluid.  Not that it collects a lot but even a little will hasten the wear of organic components in the tranny.  Keeping the fluid and components at an even operation temperature extend their life as well.  Both my trucks with tow pachages had the aux cooler and radiator in the cooling circuit.

[glen b henderson]

There is a chart somewhere (don't have a clue now, but you could most likely goggle it) that list the parasitic drag of transmissions. The FMX/COM has less drag than the C6 or C4. They stood up to some pretty stout FE's back in the day. The good thing is that they are easy to put behind a Y block with out buying a $500/$1000 adapter kit.

[Zapato]

I'm learning a lot today, some things I hadn't even though about. My experience with ford is that they're often reluctant to change and often do it reluctantly. I've run most of the early trannys and  just figured the fmx had to be an improvement or they wouldn't have committed to it. That being said it may not take gobs of hp or torque but it appears that other than weight [and it is a heavy pig] its a great choice for a daily driver. Thank you all and keep educating me am sure there is a lot more for me to learn.

Zap-

[SkylinerRon]

FMX's have a more efficent geartrain than C4/6 (less hp loss).  Forgot the looong french name of the design.
Ron.