Thread: MT82 to duratorq 3.2 engine

Why wouldn't it work?,Ranger/BT50 etc use the 3.2/MT82 drive train.The Thai built utes and Yank 'stang use the Chinese made box,on the 'stang forums they rebuild the knock off box's with genuine Getrag internals which they rate is good enough for track day cars.Many Rangers/BT50's are used as tow rigs without issue's so they my be robust enough for the job. Pat

Thanks Pat, If the Ranger 3.2 comes with the MT82 box I've been led astray along the line that it was a MT85 (the MT82 with larger bearings). a google search of MT85 directs results to LR forums so it's probably self feeding misinformation.

Drover on this forum did a visual comparison between the ranger box and defender box and stated the ranger box had more ribbing and GETRAG embossed on the box.

The RAVE manual says the torque rating for the MT82 is 360nm (odd as that contradicts the stang numbers and under engineered for the 3.2 at 480nm. On DefenderNet a poster said he destroyed the MT85 behind his defender (3.2 conversion with 240hp, 700nm) and rebuilt with MT82 internals and it was holding together.

Previously Ashcroft told me that they were involved in a 3.2 conversion but used the MT85 box from a transit and swapped in the MT82 6th gear as it was stronger. On expedition portal a post suggested a conversion used the front half of the MT85 and rear end of the MT82 to fit the LT230. I suspect its the same build Dave Ashcroft was commissioned to do. Looking at the diagram i assume they bolted the extension case from the MT82 to the MT85 box (if such exists). They didn't say if it was a straight bolt on but suggested it required a few mods.

The other hurdle is mating it to the engine. What parts are interchangeable/complementary? That DefenderNet poster said the bolt pattern between the MT82 and MT85 was the same (although he said he was using the MT85 behind the 3.2) which doesn't illuminate the clutch, starter queries.

anyone had first hand experience measuring up the 2 boxes?

Sounds like people are confusing MT85 oil which is used in the MT82 gearbox???. Pat

Info from Pete Bell and Dave Ashcroft:

1) The flywheel on the 3.2 is larger than the 2.4 (naturally). I understand that the defender manual uses a smaller clutch than the 3.2 thus a starter motor compatibility issue arises if you use the smaller flywheel and 3.2 starter.

2) the bolt pattern between the 3.2 manual and 2.4 manual are the same.

3) Ashcroft had similar problems i'm facing with the auto and front prop shaft angles. They found it had undesirable vibrations

4) the defender MT82 will cope with a stock 3.2 (480nm) but 6th gear will prematurely fail if not nursed. Any tune to the 3.2 will eat 6th gear in the MT82. Ford technical info stated that the manual was the MT82 and has the same ratios as the defender. I assume the gears and internals are the same between the 2 boxes which means there are plenty of ignorant 3.2 Rangers owners running around with an expensive future rebuild if they don't look after 6th gear.

It looks like the quickest and easiest is as mentioned below, 3.2 manual using the extension case off the defender manual which mates to the LT230. What is not clear is whether I can use the Ashcroft spud shaft they make for the defender or there is another part required. Notwithstanding the uncertainty it's been done before, it returns my prop shaft angles back to they were pre-conversion and the problems machining a spud shaft to mate the 6R80 to the LT230 go away.

Time to turn attention to any difference between the Ranger manual and Ranger auto in the electronics department to work out whether the parts already sourced are not compatible.

Originally Posted by MLD

I have a 3.2 engine and 6R80 auto but it's not quite working out so considering alternatives. Using what i have is the cheapest and easiest option.

Originally Posted by MLD

Time to turn attention to any difference between the Ranger manual and Ranger auto in the electronics department to work out whether the parts already sourced are not compatible.

What was the issue with fitting the auto?

Hi Slunnie,

The front prop fouls the auto case. The fellas doing the conversion opted to rotate the transfer case so the prop cleared the case. The resulting new problems are:

1. The front transfer output points upward towards the cabin. With my lift the front prop is nearing its max at static. Its a multiple cardan shaft. While mine isn't at the stage of being drivable i know it's going to create vibrations at hwy speed. I am also concerned at full articulation it will bind. I might be very wrong and its all fine, however you can't have a prop operate at those angles and not expect vibrations or premature wear.

The ICON and NeneOverland conversions are both lowered which wouldn't put the front prop at the same angles as a lifted truck.

2. Rotating the transfer case moves the drum brake housing. It now fouls the chassis. The solution is a disc hand brake.

3. The rear prop shaft is now off-centre of the diff housing. Given its a 130 the angles are not as critical as a 110 or 90. Nonetheless i don't like it and i anticipate premature wear of the UJ's.

4. This one is an unfounded concern. the rotation of the case has moved the gearing from the bottom of the case higher up. I have an extended sump and the V in the sump now points down. I don't know enough about the internal workings of the case and oil distribution by mechanical splashing. If the gears are not in contact with the same volume of oil will there be lubrication starvation?

5. The solution to mate the 6R80 to the LT230 is a work in progress. The project started in Sept last year.

The manual has been done by Ashroft and Bell Auto as well as others, it works. It also avoids my unmaterialised and possibly unfounded concerns.

Thanks for this MLD, thats really interesting stuff and no doubt expensive when you're essentially pioneering a conversion. I think there are some pretty significant ramifications for people like me who were thinking that the 3.2auto might be a really good onversion one day down the track when things are not looking so good for the TD5. I'm guessing the 3.2 TF is a LH drop rather than LandRovers RH drop. Is a ZF auto an option?

Mark, any idea of numbers on the 'box to identify if it's an MT82 or 85 ?
I was always under the impression it was an MT82 behind the 3.2?
I can crawl under and get some numbers, etc tomorrow.