5.0 swap with a 4x4 manual trans

Hey guys, new to the forum and looking for some info on a 5.0 swap with a manual trans. I've done some research and talked to a guy that's done a swap back in the 90's, and here's what I've come up with as far as the engine/trans.

1985-1992 5.0 (preferably mustang for H.O.)
Fuel injection with an ecu that will work with auto or manual trans without flashing or anything.

M5OD-R2 and t-case from a 97-03 4.2l v6 f150
This will need frame modifications and possibly a small body lift because of the trans/t-case width

Borg Warner T5 from a 1982-1993 (possibly not all the years, I haven’t researched variations in the years much) Chevy s10 4.3l v6 with a NP231 t-case
This fits between the frame rails and under the body without modifications, to the body/frame, and puts the front driveshaft on the correct side of the truck. The bellhousing needs changed (they are removable on the T5) and the input shaft needs changed from Chevy spline to Ford (I believe I read Ford is 10 spline). I found a couple different sources with pics and video showing the input shaft swap and it is simple, as long as you don’t knock anything out of alignment during the swap.

Engine mounts can be bought in a kit with the headers and oil filter relocation kit.

Trans mount will work with the M5OD-R2, It may need moved forward on the frame or holes in it be drilled out into slots.

T5 will probably need a “custom” mount, haven’t seen any info on this.

Clutch will need to be for a T5 to fit in the bellhousing.

Custom driveshafts will need to be made.

Both the T5 and M5 will put the shifter in the original hole in the floor.


Questions

I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, but would a newer 5.0/ECU (up to 96) from a mustang with a manual trans work as well?
Will the ranger hydraulic system work with either of these?
What year extended cab ranger would this work best with?
Is there another option for a 4x4 manual ranger?
What did I overlook?

Welcome to the forum. Interesting--didn't know the T-5 from the S-10 4x4 was an option. Another option is you can make room for it is the ZF5 from the F-250s. I'd be interested to get more information on the Chevy T-5 since my M5ODR2 is getting a little tired.

1993 and up Rangers are slightly wider, so might make things fit better, but only a 2" difference.

EEC-IV computers are only 60 wire, like the A9L for manual trans, or A9P for automatic

EEC-V computers are 104 wire and have/require more sensors to hook up

If you use a manual trans you need a manual trans computer, or CEL(check engine light) will stay on all the time, because automatic computers need to be connected to the solenoids in the trans.

1997 and earlier Rangers used Return Fuel system, running 30-40psi fuel pressure, 2 fuel lines to engine bay
1998 and up Rangers used Returnless fuel system so only 1 fuel line to engine bay, and 60-70psi fuel pressure

Your older 5.0l system will be a Return system, so 1993-1997 Ranger might be a good window to look for, these can also be equipped with less expensive manual locking hubs.
1998-2000 needed more expensive AVM hubs, 2001 and up can't use manual hubs unless you change to older front axle.

1994 and earlier Rangers used speedometer cable, 1995 and up didn't, so 1995+ dash has electronic speedometer, which requires VSS signal.
If transfer case has speedometer hole and Drive Gear then it can be equipped with cable and/or VSS and speedometer can be calibrated for axle ratio and tire size by changing Driven gear, much simpler system to deal with.

Yes, Ranger Clutch Master will work with M5R2 and most other clutch systems

The Chevy t5 case has a different bolt pattern. A Ford bell housing won't fit.

In theory, if one could put all the gears and the rear tail housing from the Chevy T-5 into a Ford T-5 and have a transmission which would bolt to a 302 BUT:

The T-5 which is rated by Tremec to withstand 330 ft.lbs. has 2.95 1st gear. The Chevy T-5 in the S-10 has 3.50 1st gear and is only rated for 230 ft.lbs. (The 4.3 was no barn burner). And it is pretty pathetic FSB which makes less than that (think 255). And 2.95 1st gear in a 4x4 doesn't match most users driving styles.

For reference, the M5ODR-2 has 3.91 1st and the ZF 5.72 for 5spd, 5.79 for the 6!

Thanks for the replies guys, I narrowed down the year for my build to 93-97, but you guys raised some more questions,
Does the ZF or M5OD NEED a bodylift?
Did 93-95 Rangers use EEC-V only or was EEC-IV used for the earlier years? I’m guessing the ECU needs to be the same system (EEC-IV, EEC-V, OBD) as the truck for all the sensors, cluster, etc. to work
What year 5.0 used a return system?


I don’t know a whole lot about Automotive computer stuff yet, but I know in 96 OBD-II became the standard, before that it was more so up to the manufacturers how the computers communicated and EEC was Ford’s system.



Elutheros- I would prefer the ZF beacuse its much stronger but doesn’t it need something like a 3” body lift because the trans is so tall? I read that somewhere…could be wrong.
How hard was it to make the M5OD fit? How close is the shifter to the original hole? And how do you like it? I had a 94 f150 with a 300 bolted to that trans, I liked it but first gear felt REALLY high ratio, that coulda been from the 3.08 rear end though…


RonD- Thanks for the hub info, hadn’t thought about that yet.


Ivwill- From what I’ve read and people I’ve talked to, BW T5 (before they changed to Tremec) only had a few case variations, which were just the shifter location and 2x4/4x4 tail housing. The bellhousing holes were all the same. The reason there are so many part #s for the T5 is each vehicle application (and theres a TON) of the T5 has different ratios.


Don4331- Thanks for the ratio info, Didn’t realize first gear in the chevy was that high. Other than wanting to change gear ratios, why would you need to change the gears? And if I use the chevy T5 I’ll be using the T-case as well, so the tail housing won’t need changed. Even if I was doing a 2x4 build, why would the tail housing matter?

The truck is going to be my daily driver, not a woods truck or extreme offroader so I don’t NEED a granny gear for first, but I’m not opposed to it. If it bothers me enough I can play with diff ratios or swap trans gears if its REALLY bad.

Ranger used EEC-IV thru 1994, 1995 was first year of the EEC-V

M5OD-R2 from a 1997 and up F-150 4x4 with 4.2l V6 will bolt to 5.0l V8, shifter is in the same place as Rangers trans, and no body lift would be needed.

Look up fuel pressures, Return systems used 30-40psi, Returnless used 60-70psi
1998 and up Ranger used Returnless
1999 and up Explorers used Returnless

Elutheros- I would prefer the ZF beacuse its much stronger but doesn’t it need something like a 3” body lift because the trans is so tall? I read that somewhere…could be wrong.
How hard was it to make the M5OD fit? How close is the shifter to the original hole? And how do you like it? I had a 94 f150 with a 300 bolted to that trans, I liked it but first gear felt REALLY high ratio, that coulda been from the 3.08 rear end though…

Because I used the flat motor mounts on the original V-6 mounts with the 3" BL I could get the M5OD on the original transmission mount.No problem fitting it at all. My shifter sits quite far forward because the trans is from a '94 F150 with a 5.0. It doesn't hit the dash, but its close. I have a 3.73 rear, so the gear ratios seem okay even with my 33 inch tires. I think the ZF is a much bigger trans than the M5OD especially in the main body of the trans.

as far as a transfer case, I'm running a BW4406 in my Explorer behind a 5.0L and it just fits in the frame rails... apparently it's at least 2" narrower than the 1356

Waric:

Apologies for missing your question:

Chev T-5 doesn't bolt up to Ford 302 bell housing - different pattern on case. Chev T-5 has what I know as the "Muncie" pattern (and Camaro's rotate that 15*). Novak will sell you this adapter: https://www.novak-adapt.com/catalog/adapters/engine-to-transmission/gm/jeep-t18-bh-adapters/kit-1415/ which shows you just how different the 2 patterns are. There is more than just ratio differences in that long list of T-5 variations. Alternatively, you can get a SBF bellhousing with Muncie pattern, but price will make you think twice. (The similar cost issue stopped my 3.2 SHO to T5 idea).

Putting the S-10's gears into Ford T-5 gets you a case which mounts bellhousing which mounts to your engine. You still need the Chev NP231 as their transfer case bolt pattern is "clocked" different than Dodge/Ford/Jeep's. (pattern is rotated ~90*)

The 3.50:1 ratio isn't that bad - the 4.0 M5OD-R1HD has 3.40:1 ratio. The issue is the 230ft.lb. rating of those gears versus the 300+ available from your 5.0. When you get into 50% more than rated, skinny pedal can cause issues quick. (And I replaced enough T-5s under Mustangs from skinny pedal issues).

The M5OD-R2 has rating of 320 ft.lbs. and 3.91:1 1st, so all in all a better choice for Ranger. BW 4406 is ~60mm narrower than 1356 but I think its longer - at least by my measurement - a lot longer than BW1354. Not an issue in a supercab but it must have some greater angles in the back on your regular cab, scotts90ranger.

(ZF is rated for 420 ft.lbs. (5spd) or 520 (6spd) so more than adequate for Ranger). ZF weighs 175lbs for the 5spd/235lbs for the 6. M50D is only 86lbs, while T-5 are around 75lbs.

Yes, the 4406 is definitely long... it's in a 4 door explorer so it isn't an issue, I wish it was a 4407 with a fixed output but from the pictures I've seen of them it would still be a steep angle... Once I lift my explorer ~6" and get it on 36" tires the rear driveshaft will most likely become an issue... I'm in the market for a 4407 so I can run a Dual Cardan rear shaft and get rid of the slip yoke on the T case output...

Just a note, the 5.0L in my explorer is running the R470W transmission, since it went out after I got it I got it rebuilt by a buddy with a shift kit and the thing works great... I've done research and that's the best small block auto trans out there apparently... it's the first auto trans I've had in around 7 years and it's my DD right now, I actually like it other than the explorer being a heavy pig it drives great, doesn't like to shift to 1st at WOT much but it's workable... if you get a early explorer V8 ('96 to early '97) you don't have to deal with a whole lot of computer stuff apparently that's vehicle specific and still run a mechanical speedo cable.

Does the 1356 fit between the frame rails without modifications?

The m5od sounds like the easiest trans to make work

What has to be done to make the m5od fit?

The m5od from a 97-99 f150 with a 4.2 is the correct years to put the shifter in the stock location correct?

I'll be making an extended cab so would the 1356 be better or the 4406?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I had a 1356 and tried to make it work, but the clearances are so tight you either have to cut pieces out of the frame rail or deal with weird lateral angles on the driveshaft. It's been done, but it ain't easy. I gave up and used a NP205. BTW I have an extra NP205 for sale. I'd love to post you a photo of the 1/4" clearance on the 1356, photobucket won't cooperate.

Conveniently if you find a F150 of that vintage with an M5OD, it will have a 4406 behind it...

If memory serves the 4406 is a similar width to a 1354 so I imagine it should fit in the frame rails, I once saw a table with a bunch of widths of transfer cases but for the life of me I can't find it right now...

scotts90ranger said:

I once saw a table with a bunch of widths of transfer cases but for the life of me I can't find it right now...

Click to expand...

Something like this?