so you could not get a rwd trans on to a fwd block? both were ecoboost?


on the flex engine there was a little dip in the face at 1 oclock ish...and there was a little pocket like handle thing that the rwd block did not have that i could tell(it had the flexplate on it) i figured it was differences in years perhaps.

important to NOTE i did not use a tape measure, but i had a solid piece of copper wire and used my pocket plier deal to bend the ends over and measure the id edge-spread of the holes on the top part of the blocks, the holes matched set to set. the dowels looked in slightly different positions...like a 1/4 in off...but the wire worked out the same so i just figured it was optical due to the flexplate on one and no plate on the other.

i did not check to see if there was a depth offset or crank stuff....i was not there for that, but was walking by and took a few seconds to do it. those engines were being shipped and i was in the way...and it was cold as ...well your from here.

looked close enough to me....now the oil pan part of the situation i could not say...maybe the blocks differ there as well. livernois says keep the pan to the application and the trans should work out....(should?...wtf does should mean!)


so after you reminded me of the potential issue i called quicktime...again.
quicktime informed me that their bell will fit either cyclone offering, 3.5 or 3.7 whether ecoboost or n/a. front drive or rear drive. whether theres extra holes over stock is an answer i did not get... which sux because they are not gonna make a bell to go to a 6r80

conversely the duratech is a different story which i suspect adds to the confusion....there was two patterns on those, as in two patterns and dowel locations on one block and neither looks to be like the cyclone...close but different dowel points. i do have the small duratech plate, i will throw it in the truck and when i get another cyclone in sight i will size it up. but the big duratech pattern i have not seen a spacer plate in those applications...i hope they have one, but i have swapped the trans on a few freestyles and the big pattern was sans plate. original engine and trans one owner vehicle so no reason to think it was left out on a previous repair on one of those jobs.

i just need to get a cyclone in my barn and figure it out i guess...

i will try to cut the bells off some broken transmissions. that always works great.

 

bobbywalter,

Yes the RWD and FWD 3.5L EB engines have different blocks with different rear-face-of-block bolt patterns. Neither one is like any other Ford engine, both totally unique. However, the 3.5L NA and 3.7L NA engines are the same as their corresponding Ecoboost versions of FWD or RWD. (i.e the 3.7L Mustang V6 has the same rear face of block as the F150 3.5L Ecoboost. )

The FWD and RWD blocks have different motor mount fitments and even different front covers and accessory mounts. I have been told that the Exhaust manifolds and turbo mounts are also different on FWD Ecoboost and RWD Ecoboost as well.

Hope you can get some sample parts to confirm!

 

so you did not try to fit them up? what measurements are different? is it the crank stickout and pilot hole size or something? what am i missing here...???


i been working on knocking out the catch up work, and close to being caught up on my various projects. so i have a few minutes to go towards this thing again...

i was able to get some measurements while out on a parts run..measurements were on a 3.5 n/a front drive engine and 3/7 n/a rwd engine....(crude but with a tape this time) and the actual block holes were the same...close enough i grabbed/dragged a broken front drive 3.5 n/a trans and set it up best i could to a 3.7 rwd block. no torque converter and no bolts and one of the dowels was missing...but they line up perfect. except the oil pan side. i am not concerned with that...

the 3.7 did not have the flex plate on it either, the 3.5 measured about 3/4 in to the edge of the ring gear teeth. i will find a complete 3.7 rwd somewhere and get that measurement.

i was trying to secure some pricing as well, and found out you have to have a valid id to even buy big ticket items like engine/transmission and floor pans and co,plete interiors etc....

not to sell to them...but to buy from them! that is some government overreach imo there....

so i hope to bolt up a whole unit and see how it plays together fwd to rwd so we know for sure....what the difference is. because it sure as fawk is not the actual bolt pattern on the block.

 

Very interesting, I've read over and over that they have different bolt patterns, FWD RWD

The FWD ecoboost engines cost half what the RWD engines cost.

 

I was told FWD & RWD 3.5L Ecoboost engines were different back in 2011. Along with the Rear Face of Block being different, I was told that the oil pan is different, the front cover is different, the accessory drive system is different, the intake manifolds are different, and the exhaust manifolds (turbo mount) are different. But I admit I have never actually done an engine-to-engine comparison. All I have ever worked with have been F150 engines. Can't wait to see an actual comparison.

 

ok, so you did not try it, good i thought i was barking up the wrong tree

i was told the same from ford initially, but the several aftermarkets suppliers and original dhr builders and later others in bld 3-4 dearborn told me they are the same, as in the duratech 35 is the cyclone pattern...same engine as far as the trans bolt pattern goes specifically to the block.. the duratech 30 had the dual pattern on it and the rwd 6 speeds have seperate housings per engine and 2wd to 4wd so i can see where confusion can reign.

the eco vs n/a engines have different transmissions and awd to fwd is different and so on...

but, in fact walt, the block rear face are definitely different for whatever reasons, that 1 oclockish divot thing i mentioned in the earlier post is only on the front drives from what i have seen..

of course i expect from front to rear drive to have totally different intake, timing cover/waterpump and drive acc situations and the associated plumbing and t stat housings etc. engine mounts and exhaust manifolds are obviously going to be different.


so in the end, untill i function test a rear drive trans on the front drive block i still am not sure if they are actually compatible...i messed up and forgot to measure the actual blocks face to face i can see where the front drive block could be shorter or some random ford silliness like that. thus the different rear face of block reports from ford.

the trans pic and fwd pic i took the other day...the rwd eco pic i got oon the net, they are different castings, but by measurement the holes are th same.

 

I contacted Tom Yentzer of Supersixmotorsports and he confirms the FWD & RWD blocks are different and you can not bolt a FWD 3.5L EB to a RWD 6R80.

 

OK, so somebody MUST need a 3.5L Ecoboost/6R80 powered Ranger, right? You would be amazed what fun fast truck you could make. There is a guy on the Garage Journal forum that is putting a 2015 F150 3.5L EB/6R80 into a 1966 F250. (engine and trans together weight 760 pounds) 1966 F100 EcoBoost Engine Swap (EcoBoosted) - Page 142 - The Garage Journal Board

 

There is a wrecked 2014 F150 Ecoboost truck with 9650 miles for sale on Worldwide Auto for $7995. It runs and lot drives. Every part you need to put a 3.5L EB with 6R80 auto into any project vehicle.

The ECO 2 project on the Garage Journal shows that the Ecoboost easily fits between the frame rails of a 1966 F100 which are 29-1/2" apart to the inside of the frame rail flanges (34" wide to outside of frame rails).

Someone know the frame rail specs on a Ranger?

On that same www.getwwa.com you can buy a 2014 mustang with 19K miles that has a 3.7V6 with 6R80 that runs and lot drives for under $5000. 300HP in a ranger with 6 auto would be fun too.

 

I think I know the guy! Its actually a 1966 "Ranger".

Engine & Trans combo seems heavy but that includes transfer case. The 3.5L eco is lighter than a 5.0.

Crazy fool bought a brand new 1996 SuperCab back in January 1996 drove the truck 2040 miles and pulled out the 4 cylinder and dropped in a SuperCharged 5.0. Problem is he was not aware 1996 Was OBD II. Took a bit to get it sorted out. Gained 10 MPG over the 4cylinder.

That truck was displayed at a Ford MotorSports booth @ GoodGuys back in 1997.

 

If anyone is looking Copart actually has 138 EcoBoost 3.5 Trucks in inventory at current time. The one Walt posted would be great as all damage is body. no hard hit in front. Subtract all the parts not needed and it would be a reasonable priced swap.

 

Just jump in both feet and do it!

It would be a great swap . .

 

When do we start a 2.7 swap into a Ranger? I should see if I can find my old '96. It only had 26k miles on it, was like new yet.

Do a bit of tune work on the 2.7 and a perfect Ranger Swap. Sign me up!

I took these pics at sema of the 2.7

 

I was going to measure up a 2.7L EB to see how much smaller it is versus the 3.5L EB, but I just have not had the time and the access to get that done.

I did find some frame dimensions for a 1998-2002 Ranger rear frame area. Rear frame width 32.8" outside to outside. Inside to inside 27.8" , do not know if the from of the frame is the same or not. But, I know the Ranger frame flanges are 2.8", so cut one inch off both top rails and that would give 29.8", about the same as a 1966 F250, and we know a 3.5L EB fits that!

Guess I will need to visit local pick-a-part and look for a Ranger with engine missing and apply my tape measure to confirm.

 

i want to swap 3.7 eco boost in to my 91 4x ranger , (bought it new) , do you know if it has been done yet? thank you doug

 

No, but I think the 3.5l has been done, a LOT of modifications needed to engine bay, Ranger has a narrow engine bay, the 302(5.0l) is only 19" wide and barely fits
The width of the engine will be the challenge
Also the 1983 to 1992 Rangers were 2" narrower than the 1993 and up Rangers

 

ThankYou!