5.0 and trans swap 65 mustang

[CDW6212R]

I think you’d still need to swap the tail shaft housing IF there isn’t a place to install the VSS in later models ( I don’t think there is)

Ditto. You have to take the whole transmission apart no matter what, unless you swapped the Explorer rear end into the Mustang. That'd be a headache to do the welding for the suspension mounts.

 

[Desertstrike86]

Well I got an email from baumann and they said their controller only needs the oss for it to operate... so let’s say I use that trans controller paired with the 97.5 pcm and fuel rail etc etc ?

 

[CDW6212R]

Well I got an email from baumann and they said their controller only needs the oss for it to operate... so let’s say I use that trans controller paired with the 97.5 pcm and fuel rail etc etc ?

That expensive controller can save you the trouble of hunting a 4R70W output shaft and tail housing with the speed sensor in it. I think it'd be smart to have someone rebuild the trans. You'll have it out for the swap, a bench build is not that expensive. Buying the needed earlier output shaft and housing will be far less than the Baumann controller, and the Explorer PCM is already programmed well for the trans.

 

[Desertstrike86]

I see what u mean... ok so lemme make sure I’m getting it right... find output shaft with housing for the old style vss..... use a 96 to 97.5 cpu to get rid of pats and to utilize the swapped output shaft for the vss....

 

[Desertstrike86]

So I came across this post 5.0 Harness Questions

And it appears that test and boomin we’re agreeing that the 99and up cpus only needed the oss for the shift points? And that a vss was not needed? If that’s the case shoot I’ll just run a gps speedo gauge and hell I’ll even keep the pats.... what’s all the components in pats just the steering column stuff like the ign cyl and stuff?

Funny thing is If i do do the 8.8 swap to the mustang as well ALL my issues are solved lol. I presume pats can be programmed out of a 99 cpu?

For the sake of ease... let’s say I use the 8.8 from the explorer... what’s the process to make it fit for the 65 mustang anyone know? Or is that a question for a stang forum?

 

[410Fortune]

The distributor is not a terrible device, that's not where I was going
The DIS spark is just so much better, yes yes I know you can use MSD this and MSD that and get a hot spark like the Ford stock DIS ignition, its still not as good as the factory Ford DIS ignition! Its a great system!!

The EEC-IV computer is just limited, I mean the way I remember it is the OBD1 stuff has like 32 fuel/air/timing maps to choose from the OBD2 computer has like 3200 (layman terms)
Its a far superior system!

OBD2 conversion is NOT THAT HARD compared to what you are already trying to do, I mean the difference really comes down to a MAS air flow sensor and no distributor, otherwise the wiring for Mustang EFI conversion compared to OBD2 Conversion is negligible!!
Especially if you use the 96-97.5 computer and avoid the pats and VSS issues...
Also with the explorer computer in place there is no need for a USSHIFT stand alone controller ($$$$$), let the factory PCM do the work

Joe Deitz, he's around here somewhere, he drives a 1964 Ranchero with a 96 Sploder drivetrain in it, daily driver.
Brett grooms would also be helpful here as he is a early mustang nutcase and Explorer drivetrain expert
I will email them and point him to this thread.

With the 96-97.5 tailhousing and VSS sensor you can ADD THE CABLE to drive your 1965 speedometer
The 96-97.5 5.0L can be stripped down of everything not needed and you are left with a very friendly, easy to swap into just about anything, stand alone drivetrain. Just ask the early bronco guys, the Explorer drivetrain has become quite popular with them in the last 4-5 years......

One last thing I do not believe the RWD trans has to be completely taken apart in order to add the 96-97.5 style VSS tailhousing? I am pretty sure you can add the tailhousing and speed sensor to a 98+ 4r70w without a rebuild....

 

[CDW6212R]

The distributor is not a terrible device, that's not where I was going
The DIS spark is just so much better, yes yes I know you can use MSD this and MSD that and get a hot spark like the Ford stock DIS ignition, its still not as good as the factory Ford DIS ignition! Its a great system!!

The EEC-IV computer is just limited, I mean the way I remember it is the OBD1 stuff has like 32 fuel/air/timing maps to choose from the OBD2 computer has like 3200 (layman terms)
Its a far superior system!

OBD2 conversion is NOT THAT HARD compared to what you are already trying to do, I mean the difference really comes down to a MAS air flow sensor and no distributor, otherwise the wiring for Mustang EFI conversion compared to OBD2 Conversion is negligible!!
Especially if you use the 96-97.5 computer and avoid the pats and VSS issues...
Also with the explorer computer in place there is no need for a USSHIFT stand alone controller ($$$$$), let the factory PCM do the work

Joe Deitz, he's around here somewhere, he drives a 1964 Ranchero with a 96 Sploder drivetrain in it, daily driver.
Brett grooms would also be helpful here as he is a early mustang nutcase and Explorer drivetrain expert
I will email them and point him to this thread.

With the 96-97.5 tailhousing and VSS sensor you can ADD THE CABLE to drive your 1965 speedometer
The 96-97.5 5.0L can be stripped down of everything not needed and you are left with a very friendly, easy to swap into just about anything, stand alone drivetrain. Just ask the early bronco guys, the Explorer drivetrain has become quite popular with them in the last 4-5 years......

One last thing I do not believe the RWD trans has to be completely taken apart in order to add the 96-97.5 style VSS tailhousing? I am pretty sure you can add the tailhousing and speed sensor to a 98+ 4r70w without a rebuild....

The later transmissions without the speed sensor Ford removed the spiral splines from the output shaft. There may be some odd one year after the last(97) which do have the right output shaft. But you have to remove the tail housing just to see that.

Ford always uses up old parts on the next model runs when they can. I have a 92 Mark VII LSC with the Lincoln emblem on the front header panel. Ford never put them on the LSC's, but since 92 was the last year of the model, they used up those old non LSC parts. I'm going to be plugging that hole.

 

[Desertstrike86]

I’ve decided I’m just gonna use the rear of the explorer solves my issue.... only thing is pats but I assume it can be tuned out?

 

[Mbrooks420]

It can.

 

[Desertstrike86]

Err wait a tic.... ok so ya I’m using the 8.8 rear for the vss.... but from what I gathered from here is that I still need the abs module ?

 

[CDW6212R]

Yeah, from what I've read here, everyone who has done a swap to a non-Explorer has had to use the pre-98 computer, to solve the VSS/ABS issue. The thread about the Explorer 302 into a Volvo was the best one which brought out the most details of the VSS issue. In an existing 98-01 Explorer there's no problem, because the VSS circuit is all there already.

That's why I suggested using the late 97 PCM, then the ABS deal is no problem at all. If someone figures out how to use a normal VSS signal with a 98-01 PCM, great, that would help a lot since those are the most abundant 302 trucks left.

 

[Desertstrike86]

With the late 97 pcm I have to swap over the fuel rail and injectors from a earlier explorer? And the harness? Or just the rail and injectors?

 

[Desertstrike86]

Also just to see.... what would I need to swap over the abs stuff?? Is it just the abs module itself ? I mean if all I need is the vss signal then who cares about front speed senors etc etc right?

 

[410Fortune]

Good question.

I also wonder if a Superlift true speed calibrator (or the like) be used to change or tune the VSS signal into something the 98+ pcm would be happy with? skipping the abs module all together?

What kind of signal does the 98 PCM get from the VSS? Has anyone tried to hook the VSS signal and ground wires to the older style VSS directly and confirmed it won't work?

 

[Desertstrike86]

I think the only difference is the fact the abs module itself sends the vss signal into the pcm? Instead of vss direct to pcm? I think?

 

[410Fortune]

Right. The 98-01 signal is modulated through the ABS, but why?
What is the final signal to the 98-01 PCM and is it different from the 96-97.5 setup?


In my 88 I used a 94 explorer transfer case, and when I converted to the 97.5, 5.0L, PCM I used a VSS for a 97 Explorer. I then removed the plastic plug and installed the 1988 speedometer cable into the hole. This gave me the correct signal for the PCM and made the factory 1988 cable driven speedometer work

This would be similar to how to use the 96-97.5 pcm in the 65 mustang and retain the factory speedo
Later I swapped to a Autometer speedometer that can be programmed per mile, it understands the VSS signal and eliminated the troublesome cable.

 

[Desertstrike86]

Ya if there is s solid way of keeping my 99 pcm that would b sweet.... I mean if I use the abs module as well it would work I guess.... I don’t care if I’m throwing abs codes for the other stuff that wouldn’t be hooked up.... but what is it about the vss that helps with management of the engine efi?

 

[imp]

Right. The 98-01 signal is modulated through the ABS, but why?

Later I swapped to a Autometer speedometer that can be programmed per mile, it understands the VSS signal and eliminated the troublesome cable.

@410Fortune
Why....I owned a '96, my first Ex, so bought Ford Wiring Diagrams. Vehicle gone, but book, never! So, I see one ABS Speed Sensor at rear, (on ring gear carrier?), and, Transmission Output Shaft Speed Sensor; both of those must always read the same, (with factor for axle ratio), due to a driveshaft coupling them together. Suggests changing ratio MIGHT screw up the works,
if PCM uses BOTH those speed signals. They called it "4WABS", but it really was only "3WABS". No way of differentiating between rear-wheel speed differences, diff-carrier vs. RH or LH front wheel. But, VSS, turning with output shaft (with gear ratio correction) must show identical speeds with Transmission Output Shaft Speed Sensor; they are not the same sensor doing double-duty.

VSS drove an Electronic Speedo/Odo, the cable drive was gone, but I seem to recall analog-looking digits, run by a motor? Or, I'm wrong on that.

Sorry for the long write, I'm trying to weed through all this logically. Woulda been nice if such details remained identical all through Gen 2. imp

 

[Desertstrike86]

Does the vss have anything to do with fuel management? I would think if I used the abs module and kept the vss in the circuit besides everything else involved with abs the cpu should still use that vss signal?

 

[CDW6212R]

The rear ABS sensor produces a signal unlike the VSS signal. I've read somewhere here about the description of each signal, but I don't know how they differ. The ABS module converts the ABS signal into the VSS signal.

The OSS sensor on the side of the transmission might be as likely to be usable for creating a VSS signal the 98-01 PCM's could accept.

The VSS is basically for the transmission control, which it is critical for.