Swapping a 6L80e into a 03 Explorer 4WD?

[CDW6212R]

The rear bolt pattern on your 3rd gen Explorer is odd and won't accept any prior TC's, or later ones. Swapping other things onto it will likely require fabricating. So it's a balance of the older 5R, weak trans, versus the costs and trouble to adapt any better trans, either a 4R, 6R, or even the new 10R.

So adding the overdrive unit behind the OEM TC may be the easiest and cheapest way to gain some gearing. But look at the final drive ratios too, and try to avoid 5th gear, the OD band is the weakest link.

The optimal rpm range for the best fuel mileage, will vary by engine and vehicle weight etc. You might need to drive at 2300 rpm as an example, for best efficiency. You can partly determine that now at speeds above 50mph, watch the rpm's versus MPG.

 

[racprops]

You can’t assume what MPG you will be getting by your RPM. That’s not how the science works.

It’s not a “wive’s tall”. Nothing is free. That van probably doesn’t get great MPG at 85. It’s performance is probably also dismal. The overdrive is going to eat up power. It’s also gonna tax your current garbage transmission.

Granted these is some consideration to all that, BUT, I did a bunch of testing in a 2000 Mercury Grand Marques (a gussied up Crown Vic) Stock with the 200HP 4.6 V8 3.27 gears it got 29MPG at 65MPH and turning around 1700RPMs.

I was able to get it up to 35MPG @65MPH@1700RPMs by leaning her out to 16.5 A/F ratios.

This was not something I could do everyday.

On a road trip from Phoenix AZ to Riverside CA at 85MPH running some 2400RPMs she only got 23/24MPG once in CA running at 80MPH she got 24/25MPG.

She as all my cars and trucks have a light throttle and great response, it really felt like she could handle a 5th gear.

I can say the Explorer will get bad MPG at 80/85 Stock. As she will be running over 2500 RPMs just to go 75MPH, and I really do not think she needs that power to go 75MPH.

I may not get 30MPG but anything better than 14MPG will be a blessing.

Rich

 

[racprops]

The rear bolt pattern on your 3rd gen Explorer is odd and won't accept any prior TC's, or later ones. Swapping other things onto it will likely require fabricating. So it's a balance of the older 5R, weak trans, versus the costs and trouble to adapt any better trans, either a 4R, 6R, or even the new 10R.

So adding the overdrive unit behind the OEM TC may be the easiest and cheapest way to gain some gearing. But look at the final drive ratios too, and try to avoid 5th gear, the OD band is the weakest link.

The optimal rpm range for the best fuel mileage, will vary by engine and vehicle weight etc. You might need to drive at 2300 rpm as an example, for best efficiency. You can partly determine that now at speeds above 50mph, watch the rpm's versus MPG.

View attachment 424742

Damn what is it with Ford and 2003s??? I have a 03 Crown Vic and it too is a one year model, PCM and Transmission and air filter and MAF all 03 only.

BUT If I read you correctly IF I need a transmission it has to be a 03 OR I need the transmission and Transfer case with it?

Rich

 

[boominXplorer]

I get a solid 14 mpg in my stock 11 6.2 raptor f150 w/6r80 running 80 mph. I can eek out 17mpg in my wife's 10 expedition 5.4 w6r80. It's the low first gear plus 2 ods that make those mpgs possible. Both trucks are 4x4 but have vacuum disconnect hubs making them just like a 2wd.

 

[racprops]

I get a solid 14 mpg in my stock 11 6.2 raptor f150 w/6r80 running 80 mph. I can eek out 17mpg in my wife's 10 expedition 5.4 w6r80. It's the low first gear plus 2 ods that make those mpgs possible. Both trucks are 4x4 but have vacuum disconnect hubs making them just like a 2wd.

I would really like to know at what RPMS your running at 80MPH in those trucks.

 

[CDW6212R]

Damn what is it with Ford and 2003s??? I have a 03 Crown Vic and it too is a one year model, PCM and Transmission and air filter and MAF all 03 only.

BUT If I read you correctly IF I need a transmission it has to be a 03 OR I need the transmission and Transfer case with it?

Rich

You have a 3rd gen Explorer, which was 2002-2005 models, Mountaineer also. Those new for 2002 5R's had that odd large rear bolt pattern, and then they created a new type with the next gen transmissions. So you have some Fords to choose from if you need another trans, or TC. But the selections are few, I think later Fords have more choices, but those also have much different engines and PCM's etc.

The newer engines etc, have much better efficiency as well as power. You might do well to try to survive what you have until you can upgrade to a later model Ford, or retrofit the drivetrain into the old one. I like the older body styles a lot from the 90's, I just aim to make use of some new parts along the way. The 6R80 I see as a $4k cost at the least to force fit into a 98, but the strength, reliability, and better gearing will be worth it for the project long term. I foresee 1800 rpm or so at 70mph, but I don't drive many highway miles anymore.

 

[boominXplorer]

I would really like to know at what RPMS your running at 80MPH in those trucks.

This is in my raptor. I live in Virginia Beach so I only do but so much highway driving and avg about 12mpg around town. It's probably been 5k miles since I reset my mpg meter so that's definitely a solid avg for city driving.

When I go on trips I can get it to stay above 15mpg if I keep it under 80mph. It's a flying brick after that. I actually lost about 1 mpg when I lifted the front end 2" due to aerodynamics.

 

[racprops]

You have a 3rd gen Explorer, which was 2002-2005 models, Mountaineer also. Those new for 2002 5R's had that odd large rear bolt pattern, and then they created a new type with the next gen transmissions. So you have some Fords to choose from if you need another trans, or TC. But the selections are few, I think later Fords have more choices, but those also have much different engines and PCM's etc.

The newer engines etc, have much better efficiency as well as power. You might do well to try to survive what you have until you can upgrade to a later model Ford, or retrofit the drivetrain into the old one. I like the older body styles a lot from the 90's, I just aim to make use of some new parts along the way. The 6R80 I see as a $4k cost at the least to force fit into a 98, but the strength, reliability, and better gearing will be worth it for the project long term. I foresee 1800 rpm or so at 70mph, but I don't drive many highway miles anymore.

Please if you can share a list of what transmission that can be swapped.


ALL the really great MPG cars are older models. no longer for sale within the USA.

Yes US Cars are again in a Horse Power Race OMG I have a friend with a late model Camaro with 500HP...it is super fast, and only gets around 20MPG on a good day.

But:

As for cars having better efficiency as well as power: I belong to Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - Ecomodder.com Fuel Economy Forum from all the research they have done in getting the most MPG they rarely suggest buying a new car for MPG.

ALL the really great MPG cars are older models. no longer for sale within the USA.

Yes US Cars are again in a Horse Power Race OMG I have a friend with a late model Camaro with 500HP...it is super fast, and only gets around 20MPG on a good day.

But:

An English TV show Top Gear Series 12 Ep. 4 Summary: Air Date: November 23, 2008

This week's challenge is to drive from Basel in Switzerland, to the north west coast of England. This must be done on just one tank of petrol - no splashing and dashing in France, just one tank. The first to arrive - if any do - gets the honor of switching on Blackpool's illuminations.

So May, Hammond and Clarkson set out on a Eco challenge across Europe. To please the environmentalist they try and get from Basel (Switzerland) to Blackpool in the UK with only one tank of petrol. 740 Miles.

This time they didn’t have a tight budget but any production car was allowed. James showed up in a Subaru Legacy Diesel, Jeremy picked a twin-turbo Jaguar XJ and Hammond arrived at the start in a BlueMotion Volkswagen Polo. As far as Top Gear races go this must have been the dullest to date up until the point where the cars are about to run out of fuel with the finish line in sight. Everybody who has ever run out of petrol, and I must admit I have as well, knows that the last few miles give a huge adrenaline rush over wheter or not you will make it to the next petrolstation. You’ll have to see for yourself who won!

OK a dull show: kind of, get this First all three cars make it!! All three cars drove 740 Miles on ONE TANK of gas!!

The BlueMotion Volkswagen Polo is a 3 cylinder diesel and gets 75MPG and has a 10 Gal. Tank.

The Subaru Legacy Diesel was rated for 45MPg and has a 16 Gal Tank.

The twin-turbo Jaguar XJ was rated at 35MPG and has a 18Gal Tank.

Jeremy planed of running out of gas outside London and gong home, so he did not even try to get good gas mileage and drove with the A/C one and fast. YET he made it, 740 miles on one tank.

AND at the end of the show the techs checked how much gas was left in the Jag and reported it could go another 260 miles so the Jag has a range of about 1000 MILES PER TANK.

You can watch it here for $1.99:

Looked it up: Both miles are the same, gallons are different so 1000MPG in the UK would be 832.67 within the US with OUR gallon, a different of 167.33 miles. The US gallon is 3.785411784 litres and the UK gallon, also known as the imperial gallon, is 4.54609 litres.

The statute mile is used in both the UK and the US and is 1,760 yards or 5,280 feet.

Still very impressive none the less, the average US car is hard pressed to get 300 to 400 Miles Per Tank.

You have a 3rd gen Explorer, which was 2002-2005 models, Mountaineer also. Those new for 2002 5R's had that odd large rear bolt pattern, and then they created a new type with the next gen transmissions. So you have some Fords to choose from if you need another trans, or TC. But the selections are few, I think later Fords have more choices, but those also have much different engines and PCM's etc. The newer engines etc, have much better efficiency as well as power. You might do well to try to survive what you have until you can upgrade to a later model Ford, or retrofit the drivetrain into the old one. I like the older body styles a lot from the 90's, I just aim to make use of some new parts along the way. The 6R80 I see as a $4k cost at the least to force fit into a 98, but the strength, reliability, and better gearing will be worth it for the project long term. I foresee 1800 rpm or so at 70mph, but I don't drive many highway miles anymore.

 

[racprops]

This is in my raptor. I live in Virginia Beach so I only do but so much highway driving and avg about 12mpg around town. It's probably been 5k miles since I reset my mpg meter so that's definitely a solid avg for city driving.

When I go on trips I can get it to stay above 15mpg if I keep it under 80mph. It's a flying brick after that. I actually lost about 1 mpg when I lifted the front end 2" due to aerodynamics.


View attachment 424763 View attachment 424764

Interesting, 2100 at 80MPH and only about 2400 RPMs at what looks like around 92MPH.

Have you ever drove it under 2000, like 1700RPMs??

Rich

 

[Josh P]

It would be interesting to see how long the stock transmission held up with an overdrive unit behind it. I've owned a few aerostar vans that I used as a work vehicle. I can say with that vehicle, swapping the automatic for a manual transmission increased the mpg by 2 and putting a cone filter on the rubber intake hose so the engine could suck in hot air got another 1 mpg increase. With 4.10 gears, the van got 20 mpg when I wasn't burning rubber away from a stoplight, with 3.55 gears it had traction and got 25-27 mpg.
The newer automatic transmissions have less parasitic loss than the older units, the new cars that are offered with a manual or automatic, the auto gets better mpg than the manual. Ditching the power steering pump for an electric unit is good for 2-3% increase in fuel economy and an average increase of about 7 hp and 7 lb/ft torque.

 

[CDW6212R]

The newer cars are becoming almost all direct injection engines. Those are the ones which kill older cars on gas mileage. Those are smaller engines and make more power than the older similar models. That's how a typical 3.0 V6 gets well over 200hp, and hits 30mpg easily.

The 2017+ 3.7 V6 is one I'm interested in finding out if it can fit in the older Explorers. Those are in a few models, and make near 275hp, getting 30mpg in stock form, in the Transit, F150, Explorer, and Mustang. But now there are various versions, engines and transmissions. You have to watch the details when hunting anything for swapping. The 2017 F150 I think is the first to have the 3.7 with dual direct injection, an extra set of injectors to reduce intake valve coking. That engine might fit in the 2002-2005 Explorers easier than my 98 Mountaineer, with a smaller engine bay.

BTW, the Jaguar won that race on Top Gear, I saw that many years ago. I thought the others failed to make it though, I don't recall that well.

 

[Josh P]

The 3.7 was designed to fit anywhere the duratec 3.0 was used and that engine isn't any wider or longer than the 4.0 sohc. Someone figured out the fwd bell pattern on the 3.7 can fit a sbf transmission with a custom made flexplate. There is a junkyard offering engines with modules deleted that prevent the engine from starting, basically run 3 wires and start the engine.

 

[boominXplorer]

Interesting, 2100 at 80MPH and only about 2400 RPMs at what looks like around 92MPH.

Have you ever drove it under 2000, like 1700RPMs??

Rich

From 40 mph+ it will shift to 6th gear and go from there. It gets the best instant economy (20mpg) around 58mph even though the rpms are the lowest at 40 mph in 6th. At the higher speeds it definitely helps to be with the flow of traffic. Driving with a car infront even at a reasonable distance bumps the instant economy up a solid 10-15%.

My truck is a flying brick so isn't the best to use as a fuel economy vehicle but at the same time it shows what can be done with the size, weight and transmission. The tires are 34.5" (315/75r17) and the factory gears are 4.10. It's also a fully loaded crew cab that weighs 2k lbs more than an explorer.

Your best bet is to get a good alignment first and make sure you have 35 psi in all your tires. Then pull all excess weight you may not need with you. You should be able to squeeze out 17mpg in a perfect v8 explorer world no problem.

 

[Mbrooks420]

Miles per tank is an irrelevant measure. I’ve got a newer car and easily get mid 30s driving it hard. I’m sure if I wanted to only be concerned about mileage I could consistently get over 40mpg.

 

[racprops]

It would be interesting to see how long the stock transmission held up with an overdrive unit behind it. I've owned a few aerostar vans that I used as a work vehicle. I can say with that vehicle, swapping the automatic for a manual transmission increased the mpg by 2 and putting a cone filter on the rubber intake hose so the engine could suck in hot air got another 1 mpg increase. With 4.10 gears, the van got 20 mpg when I wasn't burning rubber away from a stoplight, with 3.55 gears it had traction and got 25-27 mpg.
The newer automatic transmissions have less parasitic loss than the older units, the new cars that are offered with a manual or automatic, the auto gets better mpg than the manual. Ditching the power steering pump for an electric unit is good for 2-3% increase in fuel economy and an average increase of about 7 hp and 7 lb/ft torque.

I can see no reason driving a Brownie 2nd Overdrive would add any strain to the stock transmission.

I am full aware of all those deletions of power accessories and the one of two MPG given, I LIKE my automatics and A/C etc.

"The newer automatic transmissions have less parasitic loss than the older units" the $54,000 question is again how much does it give in MPG vs. The old versions of those trans missions.

"Ditching the power steering pump for an electric unit is good for 2-3% increase in fuel economy and an average increase of about 7 hp and 7 lb/ft torque." Could be...where do you put it??

The newer cars are becoming almost all direct injection engines. Those are the ones which kill older cars on gas mileage. Those are smaller engines and make more power than the older similar models. That's how a typical 3.0 V6 gets well over 200hp, and hits 30mpg easily.

The 2017+ 3.7 V6 is one I'm interested in finding out if it can fit in the older Explorers. Those are in a few models, and make near 275hp, getting 30mpg in stock form, in the Transit, F150, Explorer, and Mustang. But now there are various versions, engines and transmissions. You have to watch the details when hunting anything for swapping. The 2017 F150 I think is the first to have the 3.7 with dual direct injection, an extra set of injectors to reduce intake valve coking. That engine might fit in the 2002-2005 Explorers easier than my 98 Mountaineer, with a smaller engine bay.

BTW, the Jaguar won that race on Top Gear, I saw that many years ago. I thought the others failed to make it though, I don't recall that well.

"The newer cars are becoming almost all direct injection engines. Those are the ones which kill older cars on gas mileage. Those are smaller engines and make more power than the older similar models. That's how a typical 3.0 V6 gets well over 200hp, and hits 30mpg easily."

And do not last as long as they are really pushing those little engines HARD, the 4.6 has a rep pf lasting 100/150K in police service, then sold to Taxi's companies and going another 100/150K. Lot of the run turbos.

ALL that extra stuff breaks down faster and more often, IF I could afford all that I would not care about MPG.

"BTW, the Jaguar won that race on Top Gear, I saw that many years ago. I thought the others failed to make it though, I don't recall that well." The Jag was NOT the one expected to make it, that was the shocker to everyone. And then to drain the tank and declare on the highway she could go another 260 miles was a mind blower.

The VW WAS rated @ 75MPG and had a 10 Gallon tank it was the sure thing.

It was the classic correct set up, a small 3 cylinder diesel in a small light car.

The Jag was a full size 5 seater car with all the goodies and it was thought to burn double to gas of the other two cars.

A old trick was to ship your US bought import car over seas when you took a trip, and some how blow up the PCM and get a local replacement and when you brought it home you now got better MPG and performance.

The game is rigged.

A number of years ago around the early/late 90s there was a couple of threads on 3rd Gen Camaro.org where a bunch of our guys were fussing with a bunch of Camaro owners from Australia, and they were bragging etc.



BUT then the guys down under claimed fantastic MPG…30/35 MPG after much talk and figuring things out it was discovered that there was a Easter egg they called a “Lean Burn Cruise” setting and theirs was turned on and ours was not.



So once we got them turned on the USA Cars also got great MPG something like 30/35MPG.

Miles per tank is an irrelevant measure. I’ve got a newer car and easily get mid 30s driving it hard. I’m sure if I wanted to only be concerned about mileage I could consistently get over 40mpg.

The best MPT I ever got in my 93 Chevy van was 400, and it was on fumes, AND it has a 32 Gallon tank.

Rich

PS We have a 2000 Toyota Camry, It has a fair sized 4 banger four speed auto and gets 25 city and over 30 Highway perhaps more, BUT it is a compact, and we cannot really really carry much and it is bullied by nearly every other car, SUV and pickup truck on the highway.

It is a cute little puddle jumper for popping to the store but neither of us want to take a rod trip even a day trip in it.

For day trip we want the Explorer and for over night I am rebuilding a new drive train for my 93 Star Craft custom G20 Chevy Van.

I hope to get 20 to 30MPG in it as well.

 

[Josh P]

400 miles on 32 gallons means you are not passing very many gas stations. I can't answer the other questions.

 

[racprops]

400 miles on 32 gallons means you are not passing very many gas stations. I can't answer the other questions.

I know and that was nearly 100% highway. And that calculates as 12.5MPG.

That was a 93 lower RPM 350 (torque peek 2200RPS by the book) though a 4L60e into a stock 3.43 rear end fed by a TBI fuel injection system, running around 80MPH.

About 5 years ago we did a run from Phoenix AZ to Soldona AZ, which involved some hilly roads and running again 80/85 came up with that trip at 14MPG.

Rich

 

[newmantjn]

Follow up.

Talked with Ken at US shift.

Yes, it can be done, the 06 up Explorers came with a version of the 6 gear, a 6R60, and with 4WD.

He believes to do the swap it will take the whole transfer case, and drive shafts.

Plus no one makes a aftermarket controller for the 6R60 so there is that.

And he thinks you cannot run the factory PCM without a fair amount of rewiring, and the PCM may not be compatible with the 02/05 systems.

OK So now can anyone prove Ken wrong??

I actually did this back in the day. I was the cal/controls guy for 6R60 and at one point, we were going to put a 6R in the base Explorer. It was already going into the V8 and we were following on with the v6 a year or two after.

Anyway, IIRC, the 6R of that period had the TCM in the bottom pan of the transmission. It was a Bosch controller that communicated via CAN.

So, to make this work, you would need software to run the engine. A controller that had the proper CAN interface and a V6 calibration.

On the Hardware side, we typcially would make some sort of 1" or so thick adapter that had the 4.0L bolt pattern on one side and the 6R bolt pattern on the other. Then, of course, you would need a driveshaft of the proper length made up. Your other interface issue would be the torque converter to flexplate. You may be able to find a V8 flexplate and adapt it to the v6.

Then you can start troubleshooting this mess.

I honestly can't see you ever getting your money's worth out of doing this. The fuel economy of a non-optimized rig like this could actually be worse than what you had.

It was a PITA with all the resources of Ford Motor Company behind the project. Good luck!!

 

[newmantjn]

Here is the problem, history saids the 5R55 is week, and I would really like a taller overdrive for better MPG high way, a 6L80 has that.

SO has anyone done this swap??


Rich

Here are the number:

5R55S Gear Ratios 6R80

1st 3.22 1st 4.03
2nd 2.29 2nd 2.36
3rd 1,55 3rd 1.53
4th 1.00 4th 1.15
5th 0.71 5th .85
6th .65

With this transmission I could run a 3.55 or 3.27 or 3.08

Question, will all three of these gear sets fit on a 3.73 limited slip carrier??

I actually did this back in the day. I was the cal/controls guy for 6R60 and at one point, we were going to put a 6R in the base Explorer. It was already going into the V8 and we were following on with the v6 a year or two after.

Anyway, IIRC, the 6R of that period had the TCM in the bottom pan of the transmission. It was a Bosch controller that communicated via CAN.

So, to make this work, you would need software to run the engine. A controller that had the proper CAN interface and a V6 calibration.

On the Hardware side, we typcially would make some sort of 1" or so thick adapter that had the 4.0L bolt pattern on one side and the 6R bolt pattern on the other. Then, of course, you would need a driveshaft of the proper length made up. Your other interface issue would be the torque converter to flexplate. You may be able to find a V8 flexplate and adapt it to the v6.

Then you can start troubleshooting this mess.

I honestly can't see you ever getting your money's worth out of doing this. The fuel economy of a non-optimized rig like this could actually be worse than what you had.

It was a PITA with all the resources of Ford Motor Company behind the project. Good luck!!

 

[newmantjn]

.