Flexplate Bolts and TConverter Clearance

[HarleyJack17]

Anyone running a Broader Torque Converter in their C6, anything you have to do different when fitting it?
My initial observation is the OEM flex plate bolts are to thick and I will need some with a thinner head.  Or I could space the flex plate up of the surface....this moves it back so not looking at that option just yet.
This is a 12" converter for my truck. Got the C6 installed Saturday and thought I would do some checking on things before moving forward and found all this.
I figure this has been done by many in the forum and curious as to what your experience was, the fix.

[AlanCasida]

I am using a Broader 10" converter and I ended up getting some aftermarket bolts with thinner heads. When I took the motor out of the car I noticed there were marks on the front of the converter that came from the the flexplate bolts. Also you might want to look at the snout where the converter engages the pump. There should be an angled shoulder where the flats for the pump drive transition to the round part of the snout. Mine were not not angled and it caused the converter to stick out a little further so there wasn't any clearance and it pushed the crank forward and ruined the thrust area on my crankshaft. That was my thought at the time anyway. Just something to check.   

[HarleyJack17]

Thank you for your info.  I will add it to my check list.  I know the OEM worked fine, and know this one will too, but they are definitely different sizes/specs etc. and that changes it all up.
Figured it was nothing new and many of you all had been there, done that HAHA.

[HarleyJack17]

In case it may help someone. Distance from flex plate to converter was .518. The plate is .100 thick. Flex plate re enforcement ring is .128. So .518 - .100= .418 (distance from mounting surface to converter). Thus .418 - .128= .29 (clearance). The OEM Bolts are .3 - .302 ish. Not all micrometer precise but I'd say close enough. Ring was a little surface rusty, new Orielly ordered plate, etc.

Short version: If you do not space the converter away from the flex plate, and use the OEM ring etc, you will need new(thinner) bolts as mentioned earlier in the thread.  Now to find some local or order...more waiting I guess.
I did notice(rough guess) the drive "flats" look to be about 1/16" different than the OEM. Guess we shall see how it all goes when I stick the motor in and try to bolt it all up and check tolerances. All new territory for me on the transmission stuff. 

445 FE and 4x4 Short C6

[Falcon67]

I have yet to use any aftermarket converter - custom or otherwise - that I didn't have to use ARP thin head bolts with in order to get proper seating against the plate.  I never reuse factory bolts anyway.  Probably have a can full of them in a box somewhere.

[HarleyJack17]

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I am not surprised...really figured there would have been something indicating they were needed BUT most folks probably are doing race stuff and using a different plate etc. Guess I am saying it is common knowledge if you are not new to it.  First go around for me. Hopefully it moves, and in the right direction...we shall know soon.

[FElony]

FWIW, I have found in a couple places that the original reinforcing ring from Ford is .060" thick. There appears to be a run of reproduction rings that are .120". My conspiracy theory here is that the repros are foreign substandard steel, and that the thickness was doubled to negate that. Just a theory, though. Since this part has been obsoleted from Ford for a very long time, rings purchased in non-OEM packaging may be repro. Not sure if it makes a difference. Either one still thicker than my tin foil hat.

[thatdarncat]

FWIW, I have found in a couple places that the original reinforcing ring from Ford is .060" thick. There appears to be a run of reproduction rings that are .120". My conspiracy theory here is that the repros are foreign substandard steel, and that the thickness was doubled to negate that. Just a theory, though. Since this part has been obsoleted from Ford for a very long time, rings purchased in non-OEM packaging may be repro. Not sure if it makes a difference. Either one still thicker than my tin foil hat.

This is a NOS Ford service B9AE-6A366-B reinforcement ring from the original package I posted on the other thread, I just measured it - it’s a touch over .120”. Somewhere here I probably have a couple used originals, I’ll try to find them, but I think they’re the about the same.

[FElony]

FWIW, I have found in a couple places that the original reinforcing ring from Ford is .060" thick. There appears to be a run of reproduction rings that are .120". My conspiracy theory here is that the repros are foreign substandard steel, and that the thickness was doubled to negate that. Just a theory, though. Since this part has been obsoleted from Ford for a very long time, rings purchased in non-OEM packaging may be repro. Not sure if it makes a difference. Either one still thicker than my tin foil hat.

This is a NOS Ford service B9AE-6A366-B reinforcement ring from the original package I posted on the other thread, I just measured it - it’s a touch over .120”. Somewhere here I probably have a couple used originals, I’ll try to find them, but I think they’re the about the same.

Hmm. NOW I'm wondering if Ford didn't thicken the ring at some point in its 20-year run, and the repros wound up copying the thicker piece. It would be corny of my to say the plot thickens, so I won't say that. At all. Never entered my mind..... nope.

Thanks for your input!

[Falcon67]

Now I have to go look for a ring for a SBF and see how think that one is.  If I have a spare that is.