Allpar Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a wrecked 2004 Sebring with the 2.7L V6 and auto transaxle. I'm considering another project, to put a later model engine into a Chrysler Conquest. Since the price is right (free) on the 2.7, I looked to see if there was ever a manual trans option. I see the Sebring did so, this takes care of the clutch. The problem I'm running into is finding a RWD manual transmission to mate with it. There are other issues such as the intake pointing the wrong way, but it appears Charger RWD parts could be used to fix that.

From what I've read here on Allpar, the 2.7 was developed from the 3.5 V6. Looking into vartiations there, I saw a Nitro that used a 6 speed manual, but it appears not with the 4.0 V6 that is in the 2.7 family.

My question then relates to the bellhousing bolt pattern. Is it the same for the 2.7 V6 as it is for other cars/trucks?

Thanks for any info.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Have you thought about moving the transaxle to the rear and making a torque tube? This is my thought of making this work, transaxles in the rear helps with the balance of the front/rear weight, too. The fun part is making the torque tube, but it also alleviates the transmission hump.There is also a sticky post for transmission applications, too, but can't remember where it is located.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Interesting idea. Since I can't use the transaxle I have (it's automatic) I think it would be more cost-effective to use a regular RWD transmission.

I'm fairly certain there would also be real estate issues mounting a transaxle, the Conquest has a huge gas tank, like 19 gallons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
True, but gas tanks are made to be moved for things like this, most any rear end could interfere with it. Look for that transmission/engine compatability thread, either general or tech area I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks, will do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
It's there under General Tech, just looked at it briefly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Linked:
http://www.allpar.com/forums/topic/117404-enginetransmission-bell-housings/

I think I have already read that when I was doing some other research. Looks like it's a very limited range:
need pattern name, if any - Apparently not the same pattern as LA 2.7L V6, 3.2L V6, 3.3L V6, 3.5L V6, 3.8L V6, 4.0L V6 (maybe on 3.3 and 3.8)

Looking for a truck/RWD manual application, the Gen 1 Dakota used the 3.9 Magnum V6.
Gen 2 Dakota apparently used the 3.7 PowertTech V6 and 3.9 Magnum V6.

If the 3.8 is the same, then the 2007-11 Jeep Wrangler (JK) used it, but from what I've read it was only a manual offering with the 3.6 Pentstar V6, which of course is a different pattern.

Having read though the linked thread, one relevant post was this one:
"The Mitsu V6 bellhousings are almost identical to the LH V6 bellhousings. The principal differences are that:

- The starter location was moved downward due to the structural webbing present on the Mitsu V6 block between the bottom left engine bolt hole and the left cylinder bank lower bolt hole.
- A water channel was cut into the top of the bellhousing, between the left and right cylinder bank upper bolt holes. This was to allow clearance for the Mitsu V6 water pump inlet pipe."

If that is true, then this opens up more possibilities. The Mitsu 3.0L 6G72 was used in the Sebring as an automatic only. Looking at a list of vehicles that used the 6G72 in a RWD application, the newer ones were the Mitsu Mighty Max P/U 1990-96. The 1988-90 Dodge Raider (a/k/a Mitsu Montero) also used it, as well as the G54B that was in the Conquest. Visitng www.car-part.com I saw a 1990 Montero offered a manual trans with the 3.0 V6. The next generation Montero did so as well when I checked a 1996 model. For a 1996 Mitsu P/U, the manual trans did not show as offered with the 3.0 V6.

The largest 3.0/manual listing on car-part was for an example vehicle of a 1990 Dodge D-50 PU. I found several pages of manual transmissions for this vehicle, several of which came from a Montero. Many were listed as 4WD.

When I specifed just a Montero, I found a total of 4 manual transmissions for sale for a manual 1990 Montero. It depends on how you search as to what you find.

Expanding upon this, the 6G74 is the same pattern, and is used in the Montero Sport, which is still in production although apparently not sold here. Using an example vehicle of 1999, I found a 4WD 3.0 V6 manual transmisson listing. There were only 6 of them in the US. From 2000+ the only trans listed was an automatic.

In summary, the best option at this point is a manual transmission from a 1990-96 model D-50 PU or Montero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
When I looked up some automatic trans info, it looks like the 2.7 is possibly a standalone. A 2004 Concorde uses both 2.7 and 3.5 V6 engines, and the 3.5 is on the common bell list. However, the listing for the 2004 Concorde shows one for the 2.7 and one for the 3.5. This could be due to one being a beefier transaxle.

A 2009 Dodge Avenger lists three different automatics, one each for the 2.4, 2.7 and 3.5.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
The Jeep 3.8 has a manual, not sure how common they are, somewhere around 2007 I think. An auto may be the only option that is common or easy to find. The old torque tube wouldn't matter what the engine is to transmission, just have to worry about that fuel tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
dana44 said:
The Jeep 3.8 has a manual, not sure how common they are, somewhere around 2007 I think. An auto may be the only option that is common or easy to find. The old torque tube wouldn't matter what the engine is to transmission, just have to worry about that fuel tank.
I had already looked into the Jeep:
If the 3.8 is the same, then the 2007-11 Jeep Wrangler (JK) used it, but from what I've read it was only a manual offering with the 3.6 Pentstar V6, which of course is a different pattern.

The Mitsu Montero 2WD manuals are scarce. There are two on eBay, and they are around $1,000 with shipping. It would be hit or miss with a JY trans as if it was 2WD or 4WD, many don't say what they are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I think if one had the time & money, putting a 4.3L V6 (longer engines such as V8s require radiator relocation) and the C5 Corvette 6-speed transaxle into a Conquest would be fairly trick. The largest obstacles that come to mind would be mounting the transaxle and the length of the torque tube. SInce the Conquest has an independent rear, it would be fairly simple to adapt the half shafts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Given the cost of the C6 transaxle, unless you could pick one up for cheap, torque tube alteration is a shortening thing, which is easier than trying to lengthen them.
And if you are going to go to that expense, still have the same issue as with simply moving the transaxle to the rear, gas tank movement, so nothing gained by doing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I researched both concepts this afternoon.

Here is what would be gained by use of the C5 transaxle setup:
1. Using a factory setup, and a fairly plentiful source of donor vehicles from 1997-present. If something breaks, it is easily replaced.
2. A manual transmission. The Sebring V6 transaxle I have is automatic, I'm planning a manual. The Sebring did offer a manual, see #3.
3. Avoiding excessive design/fabrication costs.
a. The Sebring transaxle is set up for a transverse engine, not a longitudinal one. Incoming motion would need to be transferred 90 degrees.
b. A torque tube would need to be nearly completely fabricated. A Prowler driveline (see below) could be used for some of it since that car used the same engine family, but this would involve major design and fabrication- if anyone was willing to undertake such a project. There is a fellow on the Conquest forum that makes bellhousings to mate engines to various transmissions (he does not offer an LH/6G72 V6 to manual adapter). His adapters are around $400-500, and this of course does not include any internal 90 degree gearing.
4. The ability to handle a lot more power. The C5 setup was designed around a high performance V8, the Sebring around a low performance V6.

Looking at the C5 transaxle, the majority of it is forward of the axles, so the issue then becomes interference with the underbody/transmission tunnel, not the gas tank as I had first thought. Without having a car & transaxle to measure, the point is moot.

One other possibility would have been the Plymouth Prowler, which used the transaxle setup, but it was only offered as an automatic. Additionally, the wheelbase on it (113.3") was longer yet than the C5 (104.5"). The Conquest is only 95.9", so any of them would need to be shortened, not lengthened.


Car-part.com lists the needed basic C5 parts in my area as follows:
Transaxle (transmission): $999
Torque tube (driveshaft): $220
Axles shafts (2): $100
Total: $1319

I also priced Sebring/Prowler parts, they are a lot cheaper but this does not take into consideration the cost to mate the torque tube to the transaxle, something that comes with the C5 setup:
Manual transaxle: $249
Torque tube (Prowler) $150 + est. $50 shipping, there are only 9 for sale in the US and none near me.
Axle shafts (2; Sebring): $50
Total: $499

Even if the mating piece could be made for $820, I'd end up with an inferior part so far as power handling goes.

If I have missed anything or made improper conclusions, please let me know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Prowler sounds the best, and it was the 3.5 HO so should be able to handle what you put in front of it (2.7 and up), and the price is reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Daytona Shopper said:
...One other possibility would have been the Plymouth Prowler, which used the transaxle setup, but it was only offered as an automatic. Additionally, the wheelbase on it (113.3") was longer yet than the C5 (104.5"). The Conquest is only 95.9", so any of them would need to be shortened, not lengthened.


I also priced Sebring/Prowler parts, they are a lot cheaper but this does not take into consideration the cost to mate the torque tube to the transaxle, something that comes with the C5 setup:
Manual transaxle: $249
Torque tube (Prowler) $150 + est. $50 shipping, there are only 9 for sale in the US and none near me.
Axle shafts (2; Sebring): $50
Total: $499

Even if the mating piece could be made for $820, I'd end up with an inferior part so far as power handling goes.

If I have missed anything or made improper conclusions, please let me know.

Well, that'll just about cover the Prowler.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
Well, if you think about it, all you need is the torque tube setup and from there, change it to the manual transmission with the same bolt pattern. The torque tube setup is the important part, save a lot of work making it, just alter its length. Look at the C5 setup to determine means of setting up the clutch, Too bad you didn't want to use an automatic, would make it so much easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I have thought about it. It stil would not work, and the point of this post was to adapt a manual transmission. If I wanted an automatic, this could be done with a standard setup. The Prowler used the 42LE transaxle. I looked up the details and found this:
A606/42LE
The 42LE was an upgraded version of the 41TE modified for longitudinal engines. It debuted in 1993 on the LH cars. It is strengthened with a reworked final drive unit, barreled axle shafts, and upgraded clutch packs. The major modification to a N-S drivetrain while maintaining front wheel drive was accomplished by adding a differential to the transmission case, which was driven by means of a transfer chain from the output shaft of the low/reverse clutch assembly at the rear of the transmission case.

I found there was no manual transmission equivalent.

Allpar has a page on it as well, and the cutaway drawing shows how it would be impossible to replace the automatic with a manual:

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
So I guess you are back to the manual behind the engine itself, the C5, so what are you thinking for rear end?

There never was a manual longitudal transmission, was there? Guess that question was already answered.

What about the 2.2/2.5 and the 2.7 bolt pattern, are they the same? Will look at that, the Dakota 2.5 had a 5spd.

I'm thinking it is going to take an adapter to make this work, unless it is the 3.8/4.0 Jeep, an no known application of the 3.5 having a manual trans put behind it, right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
A thought. Get a bellhousing for a 2.5 Dakota and make an adapter to the trans, which has a removable bellhousing, so it is easier to work with, then if you want you can use the 3500 or the 3550 trans with it.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top