Update: Supercharged V8 5.0 Coyote Engine Swap into Ford Bronco by No Traction Faction

[Tex]

stuff about people going over published torque ratings

That's really neato
Still doesn't address anything in the post you quoted

Sponsored

 

[BAUS67]

That's really neato
Still doesn't address anything in the post you quoted

So, you are talking about this post????

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.

I believe the general gist of the post was about short lifespan of the 60 vs the 80.

Well, the post that @OX1 was quoting is this,

The first paragraph talks about pushing the limits of the 60 but to remember that is it also mated to a 5000lb (Explorer) with a tow capacity of 5600lb (Explorer). Some of that "life" is because of the tow rating. Just remember the Bronco has nowhere near the Explorer's tow capacity. The poster seems to me to be a tuner because if you read through that post he goes on to explain that you as an end user have to respect what they are doing, "not towing in performance tune....not taking care of, i.e. servicing, the transmission..... etc. He also points out that if a tune shifts the trans slow it will build heat and burn the clutches.

So in my eyes @OX1 is "addressing" your post of Ford's decision to put the 60 in the Bronc. If it can hold a 5000lb vehicle with a tow rating of 5600lbs. Then, it will hold up just fine in a 4500lb vehicle with a tow rating of 3500lbs. The 60 in that post is 80 ft lbs over the "rated" torque. The lighter trans gets better mileage. Lots of things go into that decision.

As far as the Braptor getting the 80. It should. Just like the Raptor is the F-150 on steroids. the Braptor is the Bronc on steroids.

Just my 2 cents.


Thanks for the read!!!! @OX1 I have more confidence in the 60 in the Bronc. By the way the wife traded in her 13 Explorer for a new Timberline. Nice, but only comes with the 2.3.

Back to reading more of that Explorer forum.

 

[OX1]

That's really neato
Still doesn't address anything in the post you quoted

I'll give you the same answer I got about solid front axles and V-8's in the new bronco. Doesn't really matter, that is not what you are getting. Swap in a 10R80 if that is what floats your boat.

You complained about having to wait "years" for tunes and to see how the trans holds up, so I directed you towards platform(s) already using that trans for several years, while pushing way more power (and torque).

I've got 57K on my Fusion's 6F55, which is technically rated @ 405 Ft-lbs and stock with premium was rated 380 ft-lbs. My 1/4 mile went from 99 to 108 after the tune, and typical torque after a 93 tune is about 415-420 at the wheels (so WAY over that trans's torque rating @ the converter).

I've had that on a road course 12 times, auto cross, and generally beat the snot out of it being my DD (I do, do a trans drain/fill, EVERY oil change, so that probably helps). So yeah, it would be nice if it had a much beefier trans, but they are not blowing up generally, and many guys are making way more power than I am.

But let us all know when you get the write-up done after you swap in the 10R80, could be some interested in it at some point.

 

[Tex]

BAUS67 and OX1

Like I said...I don't think the 60 is crap or a bad transmission, I know it holds up to more torque, I just think it's the wrong transmission for the 2.7L Bronco. It would probably be fine in the 2.3L, and I'm sure it's fine in a lot of other vehicles too. Is it a good enough transmission for the way most everyone will use their 2.7L? Sure, just like 90% of Rubicons will never see a trail, those locking Dana 44's and the swaybar disco won't be necessary. That doesn't mean Jeep should only cater to that 90% and make everything with open diffs and little axles, just like Ford shouldn't have put the 60 in with the 2.7L. There really isn't a valid reason why the 60 should've been used over the 80 and it's handicapping those of us who will inevitably want more from the vehicle down the road. The tiny gain in fuel economy from slightly less weight is pointless for a rounded off brick with big tires that'll probably be weighed down with tons of stuff anyway, and people would've bought the 2.3L with little tires if fuel economy was their thing. Smoother shift points are at the cost of staying on the clutches longer...so really, I don't see the benefits in the Bronco.

It was a poor choice by Ford, just like the puny steering rack that they upgraded at the same time they chose the 80 in the raptor, because even they knew it wasn't enough. At the very least it should've been included with the HOSS 3.0 so people had the option for a more durable trans. It's not a matter of crying about V8's and solid front axles, as the V6 has a lot of merits and potential compared to a V8, and IFS has its own merits as well compared to solid axles (they're winning Ultra4 and KoH races). It's a matter of the 60 not having merit when compared to the 80, just like the small rack has no merit compared to the 3.0 rack...Ford never should've used the small rack and they never should have used the 60 on a 2.7L. You get the rack Ford decides you get, until people throw a fit and then you get the rack you want as an option, but that should've been the baseline from the beginning. Same goes for the transmission, just not quite as exaggerated. When warranties run out and more owners start seeing what they can get out of their 2.7L, beating the crap out of them on trails, the 60 is going to show itself as the next weak link, one that should've been addressed from the factory.

In that post (which I did read a few months ago looking for some answers), it mentioned the same points that I brought up, which is that you don't get anything for free when you go above rated torque. Not only are you reducing your margins, you're doing it at the expense of the clutches and additional heat buildup. Explorers may have more weight and tow more as well, but they shouldn't be doing so on performance tunes (as noted, and they probably don't). They're also not in the same environment either...they're on roads cruising at torque converter lockup speeds that can deliver enough cooling air to the radiator to keep the trans happy, or they're making short runs up to speed intermittently. That's the only situation where people have had years of experience with the 60 exceeding rated torque, there's virtually no experience running a 570ft/lb tuned Bronco with the 60 in any kind of offroad conditions. I've already had my trans temp higher than I'm really comfortable with, I've seen 245F consistently in a lot of situations, and a concerning 254F peak in the dunes. It's not max temp for the trans or synthetic oils, but it's too close for comfort dealing with seals and clutches, doing that often enough inevitably leads to premature failure. This happens out in the dunes, high speed desert running, and crawling up mountain trails with a small trailer (just an M-100 with a rooftop style tent and camping gear, it's pretty small), and a few other situations I don't care to mention publicly, so I believe near stock power levels are already pushing the BTU limits of what the transmission heat exchanger can handle. I have no interest in adding to that problem by continuing to use the same transmission with additional power, or reverting back to my stock tune in those situations, and I'd be chasing my own tail by adding more coolers or heat exchangers and better clutches and plates and changing fluids twice as often when the 80 could've handled it all with the same equipment and a higher torque rating...almost as if it was meant for the application. Plus, if that's not enough, I still have room to chase my tail with that transmission if I decide to go nuts with power. The 60 has a tendency to stay on the clutches longer when shifting, and in environments where you're constantly shifting up and down under load, like in sand dunes, bombing down a desert road, or crawling mountain trails with a trailer, it can build up heat quickly. With an 80, the shift points are firmer and cause less heat, making it the better choice offroad. Theoretically I could bump the power up quite a bit over stock and still maintain a good margin of safety. Or, I could leave it at stock power levels and not worry about temps.

Ultimately, the 60 is close to being on the edge for a more or less unmodified Bronco in the kind of environment it was supposedly designed for, which means when people start modifying them in the same way they do with Jeeps, the 60 is going to feel really small, and some people are already seeing that. I'm already seeing it with nothing more than a panda module.

If I'm the first, I'll for sure be making a detailed writeup on it. Hopefully NTF will make their process publicly available for programming an 80 to work in the Bronco and it won't be too much of a hassle, but I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of module swapping and other programming that wouldn't be applicable to doing trans swap, so I dunno how helpful it'll end up being. I went through the process of programming a 3.0 rack today with the help of another member, and it seemed kind of straightforward (mpeugeot made it look easy, but I was still a bit lost). Basically just making the rack think it was in an applicable vehicle by changing the VIN to a newer Bronco with the 3.0 rack, then changing the VIN back to original after the rack was programmed. Or I think that's how it went. Maybe it's a similar process for the 80. That would leave the 80 to t-case compatibility issue that NTF was addressing, but there could be a simple solution if the raptor's 80 has a different t-case bolt pattern than the F-150, or the t-case is different, either way. Swapping in a 3.0L might even prove just as easy if it's only a matter of reprogramming modules and connecting all the relevant bits where they need to be, and I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in that.

 

[mcinfantry]

 

[OX1]

Like I said...

Sorry (not really), but good luck getting the ADD public to read that, LOL!!

 

[j_marinelli]

New video added

 

[Jdc]

I'll give you the same answer I got about solid front axles and V-8's in the new bronco. Doesn't really matter, that is not what you are getting

 

[King_Bronco0327]

If I were to try and tackle this I think I would try to find a donor F150 with a 5.0 already mated to a 10R80. Not sure how everything else will jive together though.

The 10R80 is also in the Bronco Raptor. Since the regular Bronco and the BR share the same frame and body it makes sense to either 1 buy a Bronco Raptor and just swap it with a 5.0 or two buy the Tranny and Transfer-case as a pair from the BR and the 5.0 separately and drop that B in. That could also solve the electronics issue since the Bronco and BR more or less share the same electronics and it could solve the transmission mount issue; as in you wouldn’t have to fabricate one, just grab it from the BR. The ladder seems to be the cheaper option given the current price of BR. Hell it might be even cheaper even if I could get my hands on a BR at MSRP.

 

[mpeugeot]

BAUS67 and OX1

Like I said...I don't think the 60 is crap or a bad transmission, I know it holds up to more torque, I just think it's the wrong transmission for the 2.7L Bronco. It would probably be fine in the 2.3L, and I'm sure it's fine in a lot of other vehicles too. Is it a good enough transmission for the way most everyone will use their 2.7L? Sure, just like 90% of Rubicons will never see a trail, those locking Dana 44's and the swaybar disco won't be necessary. That doesn't mean Jeep should only cater to that 90% and make everything with open diffs and little axles, just like Ford shouldn't have put the 60 in with the 2.7L. There really isn't a valid reason why the 60 should've been used over the 80 and it's handicapping those of us who will inevitably want more from the vehicle down the road. The tiny gain in fuel economy from slightly less weight is pointless for a rounded off brick with big tires that'll probably be weighed down with tons of stuff anyway, and people would've bought the 2.3L with little tires if fuel economy was their thing. Smoother shift points are at the cost of staying on the clutches longer...so really, I don't see the benefits in the Bronco.

It was a poor choice by Ford, just like the puny steering rack that they upgraded at the same time they chose the 80 in the raptor, because even they knew it wasn't enough. At the very least it should've been included with the HOSS 3.0 so people had the option for a more durable trans. It's not a matter of crying about V8's and solid front axles, as the V6 has a lot of merits and potential compared to a V8, and IFS has its own merits as well compared to solid axles (they're winning Ultra4 and KoH races). It's a matter of the 60 not having merit when compared to the 80, just like the small rack has no merit compared to the 3.0 rack...Ford never should've used the small rack and they never should have used the 60 on a 2.7L. You get the rack Ford decides you get, until people throw a fit and then you get the rack you want as an option, but that should've been the baseline from the beginning. Same goes for the transmission, just not quite as exaggerated. When warranties run out and more owners start seeing what they can get out of their 2.7L, beating the crap out of them on trails, the 60 is going to show itself as the next weak link, one that should've been addressed from the factory.

In that post (which I did read a few months ago looking for some answers), it mentioned the same points that I brought up, which is that you don't get anything for free when you go above rated torque. Not only are you reducing your margins, you're doing it at the expense of the clutches and additional heat buildup. Explorers may have more weight and tow more as well, but they shouldn't be doing so on performance tunes (as noted, and they probably don't). They're also not in the same environment either...they're on roads cruising at torque converter lockup speeds that can deliver enough cooling air to the radiator to keep the trans happy, or they're making short runs up to speed intermittently. That's the only situation where people have had years of experience with the 60 exceeding rated torque, there's virtually no experience running a 570ft/lb tuned Bronco with the 60 in any kind of offroad conditions. I've already had my trans temp higher than I'm really comfortable with, I've seen 245F consistently in a lot of situations, and a concerning 254F peak in the dunes. It's not max temp for the trans or synthetic oils, but it's too close for comfort dealing with seals and clutches, doing that often enough inevitably leads to premature failure. This happens out in the dunes, high speed desert running, and crawling up mountain trails with a small trailer (just an M-100 with a rooftop style tent and camping gear, it's pretty small), and a few other situations I don't care to mention publicly, so I believe near stock power levels are already pushing the BTU limits of what the transmission heat exchanger can handle. I have no interest in adding to that problem by continuing to use the same transmission with additional power, or reverting back to my stock tune in those situations, and I'd be chasing my own tail by adding more coolers or heat exchangers and better clutches and plates and changing fluids twice as often when the 80 could've handled it all with the same equipment and a higher torque rating...almost as if it was meant for the application. Plus, if that's not enough, I still have room to chase my tail with that transmission if I decide to go nuts with power. The 60 has a tendency to stay on the clutches longer when shifting, and in environments where you're constantly shifting up and down under load, like in sand dunes, bombing down a desert road, or crawling mountain trails with a trailer, it can build up heat quickly. With an 80, the shift points are firmer and cause less heat, making it the better choice offroad. Theoretically I could bump the power up quite a bit over stock and still maintain a good margin of safety. Or, I could leave it at stock power levels and not worry about temps.

Ultimately, the 60 is close to being on the edge for a more or less unmodified Bronco in the kind of environment it was supposedly designed for, which means when people start modifying them in the same way they do with Jeeps, the 60 is going to feel really small, and some people are already seeing that. I'm already seeing it with nothing more than a panda module.

If I'm the first, I'll for sure be making a detailed writeup on it. Hopefully NTF will make their process publicly available for programming an 80 to work in the Bronco and it won't be too much of a hassle, but I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of module swapping and other programming that wouldn't be applicable to doing trans swap, so I dunno how helpful it'll end up being. I went through the process of programming a 3.0 rack today with the help of another member, and it seemed kind of straightforward (mpeugeot made it look easy, but I was still a bit lost). Basically just making the rack think it was in an applicable vehicle by changing the VIN to a newer Bronco with the 3.0 rack, then changing the VIN back to original after the rack was programmed. Or I think that's how it went. Maybe it's a similar process for the 80. That would leave the 80 to t-case compatibility issue that NTF was addressing, but there could be a simple solution if the raptor's 80 has a different t-case bolt pattern than the F-150, or the t-case is different, either way. Swapping in a 3.0L might even prove just as easy if it's only a matter of reprogramming modules and connecting all the relevant bits where they need to be, and I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in that.

get me a Raptor vin number and we can see if the module is hardware compatible. between the 60 and the 80. It's highly possible that they are interchangeable on some level.

BTW, there are upgraded clutch packs available for the 10R60. Also I agree with you that the 10R60 would benefit from additional cooling/fluid capacity.

 

[Donkeygyrl]

Just for clarification this is a build,not putting on colored shackles,lights you will never use,and stickers.

 

[mpeugeot]

Just for clarification this is a build,not putting on colored shackles,lights you will never use,and stickers.

Wait, wut, my dealer told me that the ADM was for the build, complete with colored shackles, lights, and stickers. How else can you off-road a Big Bend with a 2.3 and 3.73 open diffs on the stock suspension with 35" tires? He said it was "trail-rated".

 

[Arrowbear Rider]

Just for clarification this is a build,not putting on colored shackles,lights you will never use

What about lights you will use?


Just how much stuff does one have to add/replace before it becomes a build?

That's been the question since the first build...

Chariot dealer, "It's got wheels that are six hands bigger than your stock wheels, with spiked centers, upgraded steering rack of premium lumber and look at those body upgrades and accents! The quality of those torch holders, the look of a real warrior!"

Customer, "Yea I like the wheels, don't need the steering upgrade and the body upgrades are for posers. I'd rather do my own"

And the debate has gone on since.

 

[Tex]

get me a Raptor vin number and we can see if the module is hardware compatible. between the 60 and the 80. It's highly possible that they are interchangeable on some level.

LOL, sent

 

[Lèòn]

Bump

Sponsored