Auto transmission for 2.8

[vivacolombia]

Hi,

I currently have a carbed 2.8 with duraspark ignition and no ECU. It's mated to a C3 autobox. The C3 runs off the carburetor's vacuum and its got a kickdown cable. That's all in terms of inputs. Its an RWD truck.

I'd like to upgrade to a more modern 4/5 speed transmission. I could get a 5r55w from a 4.0 Explorer.

What would I need to make the 5r55w work with the 2.8?

Will the 2.8 flywheel work? Mines got 6 bolts, the Explorer's got 8, so I can't use that one.

I understand the 4.0 is putting out a lot more torque than the 2.8 so I'm expecting the 5r55w account for that in terms of gear ratios. Would that be an issue?

Would the 4WD 5r55w work in a RWD truck?

Happy to hear thoughts on this.

Thanks!

 

[adsm08]

My first thought is that you are looking at putting a fully electronically controlled transmission in a vehicle that has no electronics. Something about that seems destined for expensivness.

The 4.0 trans will bolt up, it should even work with your flex plate.

You are going to have to figure out a linkage for the shifter, but I am sure someone makes something.

You will need to find some sort of stand alone, after market, controller to run this trans, or find a manual valve body.

 

[Dirtman]

Before you even consider flywheels, the problem is these new transmissions are electronically shifted and computer controlled. So it simply won't function without the complete ECU from the donor vehicle, and that ECU cant function on your engine since theres no fuel injection system. The transmission shifts based on data from the computer based on all the sensors on the system. Sensors you don't have lol. Line pressure, shift solenoids, thermostat switches, torque converter clutch etc is all run by the computer. If it were a more sought after trans there might be aftermarket control units for it but its not really a popular transmission to swap/modify. Hate to squash your dreams but...

 

[vivacolombia]

Okay so that's just not gonna work.

What would be a feasible upgrade then?

 

[adsm08]

Okay so that's just not gonna work.

What would be a feasible upgrade then?

The C series was really the only family of automatics used with the Cologne engines that didn't have some level of computers involved.

The 85 A4LD, it's wiring, and computer are about all you have for options, without changing out everything.

 

[Dirtman]

If you just want more fuel efficiency with better gearing & overdrive you could always just swap to a 5 speed manual. No computer required!

 

[kimcrwbr1]

The Early a4ld can be added you would need to add a pressure switch for the O/D to work properly. They had some weak points in the hard parts there is a wright up here on how to install a pressure switch. The 2.9 used the computer for the O/D solenoid. You definately want the upgraded A4LD if you go that route.

 

[vivacolombia]

The Early a4ld can be added you would need to add a pressure switch for the O/D to work properly. They had some weak points in the hard parts there is a wright up here on how to install a pressure switch. The 2.9 used the computer for the O/D solenoid. You definately want the upgraded A4LD if you go that route.

Would I need an ECU for the switch or is there a workaround?

I'm wondering if its possible to convert a more modern autobox into 'semi-manual'. In such a way that it wouldn't shift automatically at all. All gears would need to be selected manually.

I would convert to a manual transmission. But unfortunately there's no space for three pedals...

 

[adsm08]

Would I need an ECU for the switch or is there a workaround?

I'm wondering if its possible to convert a more modern autobox into 'semi-manual'. In such a way that it wouldn't shift automatically at all. All gears would need to be selected manually.

I would convert to a manual transmission. But unfortunately there's no space for three pedals...

The pressure switch is the work-around. It allows the electronically engaged OD gear to work without input from a computer.

A manual valve body would convert it to shift manually, but I can't find one for the Bordeaux transmissions. Probably because they are mostly a drag racing thing and nobody really does that with these transmissions.

There is room for a clutch pedal, if you use a manual trans pedal set. It cuts the width of the brake pedal in half and makes the space.

 

[Shran]

I would convert to a manual transmission. But unfortunately there's no space for three pedals...

I assume all of this is being used in some other application, and NOT in a Ranger truck? Plenty of space in those for three pedals since they came that way from the factory

I would be looking at an A4LD, or higher gears in your rear axle. The A4LD was available in '85 behind the 2.8. I don't recall exactly what all is involved but they are very primitive - as kimcrwbr1 said you just need a way for the 3-4 shift to happen.

You could probably make the 4r/5r/etc transmissions work and shift manually but how that would happen is way over my head - would definitely involve a custom valve body and a lot of technical expertise from someone who knows automatics really well.

FWIW I believe that your 2.8 would have come with a C5 behind it, not a C3, unless there was some odd reason Ford used them outside of the US but I can't imagine why. C3's were commonly found behind 4 cylinder engines in small cars but were VERY light duty and would not be appropriate behind even a small V6.

As an alternative to all this, you could consider simply repowering this vehicle with something other than a 2.8... just saying... better transmission options. A GM 4.3 and 700r4 would be real easy.

 

[vivacolombia]

I assume all of this is being used in some other application, and NOT in a Ranger truck? Plenty of space in those for three pedals since they came that way from the factory

No, its being used in a European Ford Transit mk1. The van came with a 4 cylinder engine and was upgraded to the 2.8. Since there wasn't enough space in the hood, the engine sits halfway into the cabin taking up space of the original pedals.

The 2.8/C3 combo was used in sedans like the Sierra in Venezuela and Argentina late 70s/early 80s.

Its been in this Transit for more than 20 years and still works fine.

I want to upgrade because I believe a more modern gearbox would increase fuel economy and offer a better driving experience.

 

[Dirtman]

I would bet you could rig an electronic shift system. The selenoids are simply 12 volt on or off, they are sequences in weird orders so you would need some electrical know how to set them off in proper orders. The tcc is also on/off. The only issue is the EPC and no clue how that works. But... hey if you know a transmission guy, and an electrical engineer making a full manual shift system for a 5R44/55 trans is not impossible. You could just rig it like a paddle shifter in a modern fancy pants car.... off the wall and impractical but it would be cool.

 

[Shran]

I had a suspicion that this was not a Ranger we were discussing.

What about using a more modern 4 cylinder engine and a 5 speed manual since you'd gain back your pedal space? Or an automatic. I'm sure even a 2.3 from the early 90's would make a lot more power than whatever 4 cylinder came in your Transit originally... and probably be about equal to your 2.8. You could find a slightly older carbureted one, or like '86 up in the US is fuel injected and the wiring/fuel system on those is super simple.

I don't know how much help any of that is nor am I familiar with the international market Ford vehicles so I have no idea what you'd even have available locally for parts... but it seems to me that using a complete newer drivetrain would be exponentially easier than trying to reverse engineer a transmission that doesn't have much aftermarket following.