MT-82 behind 4.6 3V

[Dirtleg]

Not a motor swap but posting this here as the knowledge to answer my question is most likely in this section of the forum.

To start. I have installed an MT-82 in my 07' GT in the past but took it out for a few reasons. First the guy I bought it from lied to me and it wasn't in good shape with 17k miles. The input shaft bearing whined like a mofo from the moment I installed it.

Second I never could get the speedo working. I even got a converter box from a place in Australia that was supposed to take the Hall effect signal and convert it to a VR signal so the car could read it. It didn't work. When asking them for help they basically said they had only ever tried it on GM products and couldn't help with a Ford. Oh well.

I did drive it enough to know the gear spread of the MT-82 is worlds better than the TR-3650 behind the 4.6.

So my question is has anyone that swapped in a coyote motor and used the MT-82 and gotten the Hall effect sensor to work with the stock speedo?

If so how and what equipment did you use?

 

[RocketcarX]

Tap a wheel speed sensor or add a speed sensor to the driveshaft. You can make adjustments in the tune to dial in the accuracy

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

http://www.angelfire.com/my/fan/Mustang2006GT/Coyote5.0Swap.html

Take a look about 3/4 of the way down this page.

 

[Dirtleg]

Nevermind. My question fails in that the PCM from the coyote motor is what makes the speedo work.

I'm still using the 4.6 PCM so none of the Coyote PCM stuff applies here.

Gonna have to make a trans mounted reluctor wheel and use the stock VR sensor if I want to go this route. Which I might. Car felt much more lively with that setup in there.

At this time there is apparently nothing available on the market to generate an analog signal that will work with this PCM from a hall effect sensor. The one thing I've found was a bust as well.

 

[RocketcarX]

Nevermind. My question fails in that the PCM from the coyote motor is what makes the speedo work.

I'm still using the 4.6 PCM so none of the Coyote PCM stuff applies here.

Gonna have to make a trans mounted reluctor wheel and use the stock VR sensor if I want to go this route. Which I might. Car felt much more lively with that setup in there.

At this time there is apparently nothing available on the market to generate an analog signal that will work with this PCM from a hall effect sensor. The one thing I've found was a bust as well.

Just 6060 swap it

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

Just 6060 swap it

Yup. That, the Magnum XL, or the TKO 500/600 would be better choices.

 

[Midlife Crises]

T56 Mag XL is an awesome upgrade.

 

[Dirtleg]

I know the magnum xl, t56 is the better swap. I just like to tinker with things and this was just one of those issues I can't seem to let go of.

The MT-82 is just plentiful and cheap compared to the T56 so it seemed to me finding a solution to the sensor issue would be worthwhile.

Also the 4.6 was way more lively with those ratios.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The MT-82 is just plentiful and cheap compared to the T56 so it seemed to me finding a solution to the sensor issue would be worthwhile.

Plentiful and cheap for a reason . . . which is a shame because - except for 6th - it would have been well suited to the 4.6 with 3.31 axle gearing.

Also the 4.6 was way more lively with those ratios.

I'm sure it was. Gear for gear it should feel a lot like a 3650 with 3.31 or 3.55 axle gears swapped out for 4.30's.


I'd actually considered a MT-82 swap, but with this speedometer issue added to all the rest, but if a 6-speed swap happens at all it's going to be a Magnum XL.


Norm

 

[Dirtleg]

Plentiful and cheap for a reason . . . which is a shame because - except for 6th - it would have been well suited to the 4.6 with 3.31 axle gearing.



I'm sure it was. Gear for gear it should feel a lot like a 3650 with 3.31 or 3.55 axle gears swapped out for 4.30's.


I'd actually considered a MT-82 swap, but with this speedometer issue added to all the rest, but if a 6-speed swap happens at all it's going to be a Magnum XL.


Norm

I am not in disagreement. But a stock or near stock 4.6 shouldn't be hard on the MT-82 if it's healthy to begin with.

Drivers on the other hand. Well that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Norm Peterson]

... a stock or near stock 4.6 shouldn't be hard on the MT-82 if it's healthy to begin with.

Precisely why I considered it, at least the original version. If Ford found it strong enough in terms of torque rating for 400+ ft*lb 5.0 engines, it should have plenty of margin on torque capacity for a NA 4.6 at anywhere from 325 to 350 ft*lbs.


The newer D4 version has wider gear spacings between 2nd and 4th, and uses a double overdrive gearset as opposed to the original's single-OD setup. Not quite as nice for road course HPDE driving, which is a shortcoming of the TR3650 that I'm trying to remedy (2-3 and 4-5 are big enough steps that 2nd and 5th aren't particularly useful, given the inherent power and rpm limitations of a stockish 4.6L).


Norm

 

[Dirtleg]

Precisely why I considered it, at least the original version. If Ford found it strong enough in terms of torque rating for 400+ ft*lb 5.0 engines, it should have plenty of margin on torque capacity for a NA 4.6 at anywhere from 325 to 350 ft*lbs.


The newer D4 version has wider gear spacings between 2nd and 4th, and uses a double overdrive gearset as opposed to the original's single-OD setup. Not quite as nice for road course HPDE driving, which is a shortcoming of the TR3650 that I'm trying to remedy (2-3 and 4-5 are big enough steps that 2nd and 5th aren't particularly useful, given the inherent power and rpm limitations of a stockish 4.6L).


Norm

My interest is road course work as well.
I'm not fast, highly experienced or overly well funded. Just like the gear ratios.

There are currently stronger MT-82 internals out there now too so the durability issues are being addressed as well for anyone who's willing to go there.

If the speedo sensor issue was worked out it would be a very easy swap.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

The TR3650 in 05-10 GTs has a torque capacity of 390lbft. A full bolt-on HCI N/A 4.6 3V would only just get above that, and even then it would be in a very narrow rpm window.
The MT82 has more than enough torque capacity to handle a N/A 4.6, and should be more reliable if you upgrade the shifter. Not the best choice but it's cheap as chips and if it breaks, just buy another one.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The TR3650 in 05-10 GTs has a torque capacity of 390lbft. A full bolt-on HCI N/A 4.6 3V would only just get above that, and even then it would be in a very narrow rpm window.
The MT82 has more than enough torque capacity to handle a N/A 4.6, and should be more reliable if you upgrade the shifter. Not the best choice but it's cheap as chips and if it breaks, just buy another one.

Agreed, rated torque capacity isn't the problem with either a 3650 or the MT82 behind a NA 4.6L. At least not for autocrossing, road course duty, or at least reasonably sane street driving. IIRC, transmission torque ratings are at least loosely tied to the transmission's first gear ratio, meaning that hard/harsh use in 1st has the greatest likelihood of pushing a transmission past its torque rating. For transmissions that can be had with more than one 1st gear ratio, the higher the numerical ratio, the lower the transmission's torque rating.

The 3650 essentially becomes a two-speed transmission for most road course work, 2nd being too short (for a stockish rpm limit) and 5th too tall for the available power and the typical length of the longest straights. At best, that leaves you with a 3rd that's too tall for the slower turns (50 - 55 mph) and a 4th that's borderline too short for the longest straights. That's with either 3.73's and 27" tall tires or 3.55's and 25.9". Been there.

Better shifters help, but that separate link between the shifter and the 3650 transmission proper is still a weak link in that it can get a bit sloppy over time. I'm starting to see this


Norm

 

[JEWC_Motorsports]

The MT82 in stock form is okay but can be much better with a good clutch and shifter.

 

[Dirtleg]

Agreed, rated torque capacity isn't the problem with either a 3650 or the MT82 behind a NA 4.6L. At least not for autocrossing, road course duty, or at least reasonably sane street driving. IIRC, transmission torque ratings are at least loosely tied to the transmission's first gear ratio, meaning that hard/harsh use in 1st has the greatest likelihood of pushing a transmission past its torque rating. For transmissions that can be had with more than one 1st gear ratio, the higher the numerical ratio, the lower the transmission's torque rating.

The 3650 essentially becomes a two-speed transmission for most road course work, 2nd being too short (for a stockish rpm limit) and 5th too tall for the available power and the typical length of the longest straights. At best, that leaves you with a 3rd that's too tall for the slower turns (50 - 55 mph) and a 4th that's borderline too short for the longest straights. That's with either 3.73's and 27" tall tires or 3.55's and 25.9". Been there.

Better shifters help, but that separate link between the shifter and the 3650 transmission proper is still a weak link in that it can get a bit sloppy over time. I'm starting to see this


Norm

My only on track experience has been VIR full course. At oak tree I was getting down into 2nd because 3rd was too tall (Or maybe I'm just slow) to pull well coming out onto the back straight with a stock 4.6. It was a real speed killer in the corner but was faster than trying to use 3rd. Never got to 5th anywhere on the track. Even so would see 125 on the back straight.

Also 3.55's at the time. Soon to be 3.73.

The MT-82 is like a close ratio 5 speed with the same jump to 6th as the 3650 has to 5th from 4th.

I think I'm going to try it again. Be a while but when I get the reluctor wheel figured out I'll slap one in and see how it does on track.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Even with 25.9" tall tires, I can't see Oak Tree being a 3rd gear corner with 3.55's (27" with 3.73's is essentially the same). Most videos with data overlay that I've seen are showing min speeds in Oak Tree being in the 40's.


Norm

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

I think the MT82 is better suited to a 4.6 3V that's cammed and producing most of its torque from 4000rpm upwards. The tighter ratios from 1st to 5th keep the engine in the meat of the torque curve. All you need to do thereafter is select an axle gear ratio/tire size combination that allows you to get near the top of 5th gear on the straights, and have rpm to spare in 2nd to accelerate out of slow corners.
BTW the MT82 has a torque capacity of only 369lbft (500Nm), less than the maximum torque of any Mustang Coyote engine. Go figure!

 

[Norm Peterson]

BTW the MT82 has a torque capacity of only 369lbft (500Nm), less than the maximum torque of any Mustang Coyote engine. Go figure!

You'll never see 369 ft*lb at the input shaft in 1st gear, at least not with any street tire. Anything over about 250 becomes black marks on the pavement and smoke. Tires being effectively fuses that protect the transmission.


Norm

 

[Dirtleg]

I think the MT82 is better suited to a 4.6 3V that's cammed and producing most of its torque from 4000rpm upwards. The tighter ratios from 1st to 5th keep the engine in the meat of the torque curve. All you need to do thereafter is select an axle gear ratio/tire size combination that allows you to get near the top of 5th gear on the straights, and have rpm to spare in 2nd to accelerate out of slow corners.
BTW the MT82 has a torque capacity of only 369lbft (500Nm), less than the maximum torque of any Mustang Coyote engine. Go figure!

That torque rating is based on a much higher GVWR than the Mustang has.

The lower the weight of the vehicle is the more that rating goes up.

I've seen that rating attached to 9000lb + weight vehicles for the MT-82. Should be no issue in the Mustang really. I'd be more concerned about high RPM missed shifts than torque in our cars. Seems the input shaft bearings can be a little weak at least from my experience.