LincolnFan Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) I see, but why aren't they working on making it handle more torque? Instead of cheapening it. A dual-clutch in the MKS TF would be a killer. Edited April 27, 2007 by LincolnFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) I see, but why aren't they working on making it handle more torque? Instead of cheapening it. A dual-clutch in the MKS TF would be a killer. More torque capacity ? Getrag 6DCT250 Getrag 6DCT450 Getrag 7DCI600 Edited April 27, 2007 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Imagine the mid engine car Ford could build around the new BOSS and this 7-speed transaxle: http://www.getrag.com/456 No picture. 7-speed, transaxle longitudinal, dual clutch transmission, wet Max. Torque Capacity 750 Nm Weight (dry) 120 kg (mid engine application) Installation length mid engine 695 mm front engine 870 mm differential to rear housing 450 mm Synchronization 1st and 2nd gear triple cone 3rd and 4th gear triple cone 5th and 6th gear triple cone 7th gear triple cone Gear Spread Ratio 5,39 Max. Gross Vehicle Mass 2500 kg Shifter System hydraulic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) I love the last one, but why don't they put the prices? I doubt Ford will use any of these. Wait wait wait... Ford owns Getrag transmissions and these Trannys are not even used?! Is there a reason why Ford is NOT using these transmissions? Edited April 27, 2007 by LincolnFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I love the last one, but why don't they put the prices? I doubt Ford will use any of these. Wait wait wait... Ford owns Getrag transmissions and these Trannys are not even used?! Is there a reason why Ford is NOT using these transmissions? I don't know if Ford has any investment in Getrag by way of shareholding. The biggest reason that they're not used is that they're just coming on-line. The page for the Getrag 6DCT450 says "Planned Job 1 in 2007" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I love the last one, but why don't they put the prices? I doubt Ford will use any of these. Wait wait wait... Ford owns Getrag transmissions and these Trannys are not even used?! Is there a reason why Ford is NOT using these transmissions? most of them are not out yet. Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Ah explains the no-price-tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Ah explains the no-price-tag. and the 175 is to be in the Fiesta .. in US Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 (edited) Wait wait wait... Ford owns Getrag transmissions and these Trannys are not even used?! Is there a reason why Ford is NOT using these transmissions? Getrag is 100% owned by the Hagenmeyer family. Getrag and Ford are 50/50 partners in GETRAG FORD Transmissions GmbH Unfortunately, there is no exclusivity. Getrag is now getting in bed with DaimlerChrysler As for why Ford is not already using Getrag dual clutch transmissions, I can only guess they were not cost effective or durable enough ... at the time ! Edited April 27, 2007 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Just what Ford needs to do, rush another crappy transmission to market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Just what Ford needs to do, rush another crappy transmission to market. Getrag is crappy? DSGs are crappy? kthxbai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Getrag is crappy? DSGs are crappy? kthxbai. Sorry, talking bout the first couple of posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy8768 Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 The last good trannies Ford made were the C4 and C6. 5R55s blow up regularly. Almost every Taurus on the road has had one trans overhaul in its lifetime. Same goes for Windstars and Freestars. I used to change at least one tranny a week in Crown Vic cop cars-that was in addition to the ones the actual trans guys were doing. SD pickups were blowing up Torqueshift trannies all the time. Ford cant make a 4 or 5 spd trans that will hold up what makes you think a 7 speed will be any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 The last good trannies Ford made were the C4 and C6. 5R55s blow up regularly. Almost every Taurus on the road has had one trans overhaul in its lifetime. Same goes for Windstars and Freestars. I used to change at least one tranny a week in Crown Vic cop cars-that was in addition to the ones the actual trans guys were doing. SD pickups were blowing up Torqueshift trannies all the time. Ford cant make a 4 or 5 spd trans that will hold up what makes you think a 7 speed will be any better? wow...you certainly have a positive outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 wow...you certainly have a positive outlook. Well, he does have a point. The axod/e was a turd. And the Explorer transmissions were crap before they were explorers...remember the Bronco II?? First Explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 The last good trannies Ford made were the C4 and C6. 5R55s blow up regularly. Almost every Taurus on the road has had one trans overhaul in its lifetime. Same goes for Windstars and Freestars. I used to change at least one tranny a week in Crown Vic cop cars-that was in addition to the ones the actual trans guys were doing. SD pickups were blowing up Torqueshift trannies all the time. Ford cant make a 4 or 5 spd trans that will hold up what makes you think a 7 speed will be any better? People seem to be abusing 5R55S's in Mustangs routinely without any widespread problems. Their 6-speed autos haven't had many issues either. It's time to stop living in 1995. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 The guy isn't living in 95, the guy is wearing Toyota pink glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) 5R55E in the ranger usually blows up around 130-160K. If you tow it will granade around 80k. The sad thing is Ford does not advertise that there are band adjustments on the tranny, which there are. If owners knew about this and readjusted the bands the tranny would probably last a bit longer. My truck is at 100k now. I put $700 into my 5R55E last year, including the band readjustment. It works now except for the sloppy 3rd gear shift. Hopefully it will survive another 2-3 years. Edited September 18, 2007 by Mackintire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzitch Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 What are band adjustments? Does the 4R100 need them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 What are band adjustments? Is that like when the Beatles fired Pete Best and hired Ringo Starr? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) FWIW....Current bicycles use 10 cogs in rear. I use either 2 or 3 cogs in front, depending on where I'm riding. With more speeds in the transmissions or CVT, you can use smaller engines for better economy with same performance as larger engine with 4 speeds. This idea works really well as soon as folks get over the idea a vehicle has to be able to lug up every hill in top gear, and accept idea transmission can down shift when it needs to. And with 6 or 7 forward gears, the down shift can be only a few hundred RPM. Then it can loaf along most of the time just above idle when cruising for terrific economy. Example....My wife's 3.0 Montego with 6 speed auto is a good example of this kind of smart engineering. (I have measured 30 MPG over and over on Interstate driving) It has same or quicker acceleration performance as older Taurus with 4 speed auto. It has very good acceleration, but with it's small low TQ engine, it sometimes needs to down shift on a long steep hill. So it will down shift from 2000 RPM at 70 MPH to maybe 2400, or about where it would have been anyway with a 4 speed auto. Some folks can't get accustomed to idea of letting the transmission do the work. Like a 6 or 7 speed or CVT. I believe BMW still uses a 3.0 with 6 or 7 forward speed auto in new 528, with excellent performance and economy, same idea. Edited September 18, 2007 by Ralph Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Is that like when the Beatles fired Pete Best and hired Ringo Starr? Careful Nick, you're showing your age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchdevil Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 (edited) Think closer ratios. The more gears you have the more the car feels like a stepless transmission Less fuel enrichment under acceleration and quicker torque converter lock up. I bet the old powerglide owners couldn't see a need for 4-speeds either. I love the 6-spd automatic in the VW GTI! It feels seamless and smooth and always downshifts into an appropriate gear depending on your speed as you are slowing down and maintains torque in whatever speed you are going... And it feels less like you have to use the brakes to slow down. It's easy to become spoiled driving that car... I love driving it! It's quite interesting often going from driving the low-tech Cavalier to the GTI and experiencing the glaring refinement of the GTI. Edited September 20, 2007 by Watchdevil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Careful Nick, you're showing your age. Eh, I'm just shy of 30. I just like the Beatles. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koczani Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 How much more refined would a 7 speed be compared to a 6 speed? There was quite a jump from 3 to 4 then a noticible amount to 5 speed and less again to 6 speed. With my 6 speed i see the following ranges of speed per gear (while not scientific, its about what i see), the first number is the slowest it stays/coasts in that gear, the second is the speed it drops into that gear on a downshift under gentle acceleration, the third is the top of the range on a gentle pull away before downshifting and the fourth is the foot flat to the floor max speed in that gear at 6250rpm before shifting: 1st 0, 0-10, 25mph 2nd 5, 10-20, 40mph 3rd 15, 20-30, 55mph 4th 25, 30-38, 70mph 5th 30, 38-43, 75mph 6th 35, 43-?, ?mph (havent taken it over 80mph so far. I know these ranges are pre-programmed for the gearbox, however the ranges seem to overlap nicely and because the relative drop in revs is minimal (500+/- rpm), the shift is smooth. The 3 and 4 speed boxes always seemed to be well defined and it was harder to get overlap in the gears of more than a few mph, the shift was quite hard due to the large change in engine speed for each gear. The 5 speed seemed to work well and i think the 6 is great too, but do we need a 7? What makes me ask this question is if any of you are bicyclists you might recall older bikes, my first was a BMX, it only had one gear, great for starting off, but you'd bust a lung going any speed - and sometimes it didnt have a freewheel option, so you could relax going downhill either! Then as you grew up you might get a 3 or 5 speed with one front cog and the rest in the back which made life somewhat easier. From 6 speeds upwards you typically got 2 or more front cogs (3 seems to be the optimal for easy, moderate and flat/hard use) and they kept adding more cogs to the rear axle, last i saw there were 8 back there, giving you 24 theoretical options. Although you might only use 3-4 of the rear gears with one of each of the front ones, making 9-12 real gear options (ie you wouldnt use the largest front and rear cogs, nor smallest front and rear etc). Whilst not exactly the same as car gearboxes due to the fact that typically a larger rear cog was added to the 5 cassette to make 6 and a smaller to the 6 to make a 7, i didnt look, but i would imagine it was one of the other on one end or the other for the 8 as well - meaning the original gear spacing was often similar or only marginally changed, that is you had better power or speed on the two extremes than the older cassette. However the difference between having 7 and 8 gears at the rear is next to nothing, the difference of 5 to 6 was quite a bit and 6 to 7 was somewhat pronounced. There was also the problem of the price of these items, the materials used were often lighter and weaker than the older cassettes to fit into the same space on the axle without throwing the wheel center outside the bike centerline, so being thinner, they broke more often than the older gear sets - it all leads me to ask if we really need 7 gears on a car though? I know there are plenty of heavy duty farm equipments that use a huge range of gears x forward, y reverse with a high and low setting, but they have a range of things to do like plowing, towing, moving from a to b efficiently on a huge variety of ground types, not just drive on the road like most cars do, even most SUV's and probably half the trucks sold in this country as well. So there is a place for this type of system, however i reckon this is going to be a car/road based item. Sometimes it's not a question of logic, sometimes it selling to the customer what they think they want. Such is the power of marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.