so i must be missing something, theyre using the ranger xcase, because it mates up to the 10r80...the same transmission as the bronco? im not following the fitment issues when its the same transmission.New video added
Bronco trans is 10R60so i must be missing something, theyre using the ranger xcase, because it mates up to the 10r80...the same transmission as the bronco? im not following the fitment issues when its the same transmission.
I missed why they are not using stock bronco TC?In the previous vid they talked about the F150 case was clocked at a different angle and hit the floor, I believe. The Ranger case is clocked better for clearing floorboard.
The Coyote came from an F150 which uses the 10R80 trans. The Bronco trans is 10R60. The Bronco case will not bolt up to 10R80 trans. It looks like Ford has put the 10R80 trans in the Ranger and the Ranger has a TC drop more similar to the Broncos and will bolt up to the 10R80.I missed why they are not using stock bronco TC?
Thanks. Didn't know Ranger 10R80 and Bronco 10R60 used different bolt pattern and/or spline. Sucks for Ranger guys if they eventually wanted to try to use low gears in SAS TC.The Coyote came from an F150 which uses the 10R80 trans. The Bronco trans is 10R60. The Bronco case will not bolt up to 10R80 trans. It looks like Ford has put the 10R80 trans in the Ranger and the Ranger has a TC drop more similar to the Broncos and will bolt up to the 10R80.
One thing I take away from this exercise is that it looks like if we smoke our Bronco trans it looks like we can upgrade without much hassle. Just need a Ranger donor.
Thought there was talk a while ago (on here) about 10R60 might not be as strong as 10R80 and that even Ranger used 10R80.I knew the Bronc was 10R60 but thought the Ranger was the same. Then I heard them say it was a Ranger case and the Ranger used a 10R80 in the vid., they used it because it bolted up. You will lose the 4A (automatic) function, for now. But an Everest, built in Australia, uses a 10R80, Ranger clocking, and retains the A of the 4A function.
Maybe future Rangers models will get a 4A case.
But is it really that weak? Guy running 560 (gross) HP though a 6F55 in an 3.0 EB MKZ and many running 7-900 (gross) HP through stock coyote 6R80/10R80's (and many of those like mine, also have massive off idle torque increases, with a TVS).One of the reasons I'm following this is to see how difficult of a job it is to swap a 10R80 into the Bronco and still have full functionality. I was floored when I realized they put a 10R60 in the Bronco, as max torque input for the 60 doesn't leave very much wiggle room for additional power from the 2.7L. It's capable of making a lot more power in a Ranger (I think there's a 700HP build somewhere on the net), but the same 2.7L in the Bronco is being held back by the baby trans, even in stock form with the baked in torque reduction for first and second gear. As far as poor choices go, Ford's decision to use the 10R60 is second only to whoever signed off on the puny steering rack and tie rods.
I doubt I'll ever drop a Coyote in my Bronco, but a 3.0 with a 10R80 might be just the ticket.
It's not that the 10R60 is crap, I don't think it is, it's just a poor decision on Ford's part. There was a stronger transmission readily available for the Bronco and already mated to the same engine in a Ranger that shares some commonality, then the raptor comes along with the 3.0 (still within rated torque of the 60) and suddenly it has an 80. Using a 60 in the Bronco made little sense when the 80 is readily available and will bolt right up, and it's just one more thing for me to retrofit out of the equation. If you were building a Bronco today and you had the option between the 60 and the 80, both similarly priced (which they are), which would you choose?But is it really that weak? Guy running 560 (gross) HP though a 6F55 in an 3.0 EB MKZ and many running 7-900 (gross) HP through stock coyote 6R80/10R80's (and many of those like mine, also have massive off idle torque increases, with a TVS).
You may have way more room than you think. I would at least wait until many have tunes/mods and see what the acceptable 10R60 limit really is, before worrying it is crap.
" The stock trans has been holding up just fine to around 530 ft-lb at the wheels "It's not that the 10R60 is crap, I don't think it is, it's just a poor decision on Ford's part. There was a stronger transmission readily available for the Bronco and already mated to the same engine in a Ranger that shares some commonality, then the raptor comes along with the 3.0 (still within rated torque of the 60) and suddenly it has an 80. Using a 60 in the Bronco made little sense when the 80 is readily available and will bolt right up, and it's just one more thing for me to retrofit out of the equation. If you were building a Bronco today and you had the option between the 60 and the 80, both similarly priced (which they are), which would you choose?
Going over published torque ratings doesn't necessarily mean you slip clutches and grenade planetary gears, but it does directly translate to shortening the lifespan of the transmission and/or increased cooling issues. I'd rather have a safe and better known margin there to work with instead of waiting years to see what kind of eventual problems tuners encounter with a 60 on the Bronco, then figuring out which clutch packs and valve mods and additional coolers would be necessary to make them live to an acceptable age before dying. Easier to just figure out how to reprogram an 80, bolt it up, and be done.