RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Right. Because it always works well when you depend on an outside supplier for a very important piece of technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Right. Because it always works well when you depend on an outside supplier for a very important piece of technology. Especially if it's a group of former Getrag employees who formed their own company. What could go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Well that's what the accountants think, and they're always right..... apparently, dealing with angry customers is another department that costs the company money.... Edited September 29, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Especially if it's a group of former Getrag employees who formed their own company. What could go wrong? Or a group of former Microsoft employees.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Or a group of former Microsoft employees.............. I'm seeing a pattern here of ex-employees setting themselves up as either consultants or competitors, they might have the expertise of their former employers but more often than not, the quality of product delivery is far less. That is the main are where a lot of corporations spend a fortune ensuring their products (hopefully) don't fail prematurely in service. Yes, Ford should take charge os critical items, yes they should do more JVs that suit their purposes but go tell that to the accountants. Edited September 29, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Or a group of former Microsoft employees.............. That's what I was referring to without referring to it...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 That's what I was referring to without referring to it...... Ah. I thought that was a reference to some added layer of incompetence in the Chinese Mustang Transmission fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Sorry guys, but if you think partnering (and relying on) the ultra-mismanaged GM to design something as important as your next generation of transmissions is somehow smarter then using the design of ZF (mind you Chrysler builds the transmissions in their own factory) and has already proven itself... then by all means, carry on. Any money saved in scale is going to be lost in design hell when GM can't agree on which ends connects to the engine. You realize that by GM taking the reigns on the FWD transmission means that it will be under the hood of your next generation Fusion/Focus/Taurus? ...and you are OK with that? Wow. Here's a picture for you: Edited September 29, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) ...and you do realize that by having GM lead the design of the FWD transmission, Ford is basically depending on an outside supplier for a very important piece of technology? Edited September 29, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 "How many speeds again?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) - GM's automatic transmission unit has hardly been a trouble spot for the company. - GM is not the sole developer of the transmission. - Ford will be writing all of the controls for this transmission. So, in short, GM's shared responsibility consists of: packaging and metallurgy. Edited September 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Ford is hardly 'dependent' on GM in the same way that Chrysler is dependent on ZF, or in the same way that Ford was--and to a certain extent still is 'dependent' on BSquare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 So, in short, GM's shared responsibility consists of: packaging and metallurgy. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Ford already builds the ZF 6HP under license as the 6R80, if that association with ZF was so grand then why is Ford about to commit to two major JVs with GM - maybe ZF locked in early with Chrysler? Ford is hardly 'dependent' on GM in the same way that Chrysler is dependent on ZF, or in the same way that Ford was--and to a certain extent still is 'dependent' on BSquare The previous JV between Ford and GM resulted in good products for both manufacturers,auto transmissions is something Americans do well because they understand the market and I'm predicting that these transmissions will enable some pretty mind blowing engine sizes in vehicles. specifically, things Ford can't do with small capacity Ecoboost engines and today's transmissions. I still don't know what all the hype is about cars getting 40 and 47 MPG. My wife leased a Nissan Sentra in 1996 for $99 per month and Nissan paid the property taxes. Sorry, guys it was too good to pass up. But I got 52 MPG with that car, a 5 speed manual with overdrive. And back then I didn't even use the techniques I use now! What ever happened to the free wheeling clutch like on the 60's Saabs? Here it is 2012 and we can only get 47 MPG? Sad. Because your Wife's Nissan Sentra was rated at 40 mpg in 1996, under today's test conditions and correction factors, that becomes approx. 34-35 mpg. Edited September 29, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Citation needed. GM's shared1 responsibility consists of: packaging2 and metallurgy3. 1: From the original article, GM is said to be 'leading' design of the 9 speed, which is different from Ford hiring GM to design something. In essence, it means that Ford resources and Ford decision making will also be involved in this process. 2: From inference: The basic design of an automatic transmission is well-established, and absent any report of a radical new design for this transmission, it can safely be assumed that this will consist of a conventional planetary gear arrangement, meaning little to no 'design' work is needed apart from packaging the gearsets to meet the design specs (not to say that this is a minor task--it is, however, only one part of launching a new transmission). Servo motors used to engage the gearsets may be spec'ed by GM, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the motors may be replaced at Ford's discretion. 3: Again, from inference: As lead designer, GM is ultimately responsible for determining the best alloys for the transmissions; however, even here, one suspects that Ford may at its discretion alter the alloys used in the transmission's internals. These transmissions will be controlled by Ford software, assembled from parts purchased by Ford, inspected by Ford, and by Ford labor at Ford plants. Ford will have (if the preceding JV is any indication) a fairly free hand in altering the transmission's ratios without requesting permission from GM or indeed consulting with them at any length. ---- By contrast, Chrysler is manufacturing that ZF transmission under license, and if there is any warranty provided by ZF, it seems likely to require Chrysler to manufacture the transmission exactly to spec. If any aspect of the ZF transmission turns out to be inferior, Chrysler may or may not have the ability to alter the materials and parts used in the transmission. In short, if the transmission has any defects, they almost certainly have to be remedied by ZF, which is contingent on ZF agreeing that there are defects. Edited September 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 You realize that by GM taking the reigns on the FWD transmission means that it will be under the hood of your next generation Fusion/Focus/Taurus? ...and you are OK with that? How is it any different than the current 6F35/6F50/6F55 under the hood of the current Fusion/Edge/Taurus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 2: From inference: The basic design of an automatic transmission is well-established, and absent any report of a radical new design for this transmission, it can safely be assumed that this will consist of a conventional planetary gear arrangement, meaning little to no 'design' work is needed apart from packaging the gearsets to meet the design specs. Servo motors used to engage the gearsets may be spec'ed by GM, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the motors may be replaced at Ford's discretion. Inferring is not a citation, but I'll go along since much of it does have grounds in reality. If The basic design of an automatic transmission is well-established (absent any report of a radical new design for this transmission) and little or no design work is needed, then why is Ford relying on GM for anything? Why are they not doing it themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 How is it any different than the current 6F35/6F50/6F55 under the hood of the current Fusion/Edge/Taurus? It is different because it isn't the one currently under the hood of the current Fusion/Edge/Taurus. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Especially with GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Inferring is not a citation, but I'll go along since much of it does have grounds in reality. The inference would be a citation if published elsewhere. So you'll just have to assume that to be the case. If The basic design of an automatic transmission is well-established (absent any report of a radical new design for this transmission) and little or no design work is needed, then why is Ford relying on GM for anything? Why are they not doing it themselves? Because GM has a good corporate knowledge base for packaging transmissions--and engineering the parts therein (think: when did GM last launch a truly lousy automatic transmission). That's why you partner with them Edited September 29, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Ford already builds the ZF 6HP under license as the 6R80, if that association with ZF was so grand then why is Ford about to commit to two major JVs with GM - maybe ZF locked in early with Chrysler? BMW, Audi and Rolls Royce currently use the (8 spd) design across most of their model range (along with the Jaguar XF), I don't believe there is any exclusivity restraints. Honda / Acura are going to be using the 9 spd starting next year. Edited September 29, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Because GM has a good corporate knowledge base for packaging transmissions--and engineering the parts therein (think: when did GM last launch a truly lousy automatic transmission). That's why you partner with them I guess I had more faith in Ford engineers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 It's cheaper than doing it yourself, and their knowledge base is deeper. Why wouldn't you do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) It's cheaper than doing it yourself, and their knowledge base is deeper. Why wouldn't you do this? Because GM. We've all followed their development drama the past 3 years with projects being delayed /cancelled / reintroduced / up for discussion / (or "hey let's change every launch schedule to get out some mildly upgraded pickups"). They have no direction and I don't trust them to have a valid entry in the timeframe required, little to no work required or not. If a new vehicle intro requires this transmission to be done in certain amount of time in order to launch, then this could make the MFT fiasco look like a hangnail for Ford. Edited September 29, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) Makes you wonder if Hybrid tech gets a shake along and electric CVTs become all the rage what happens to these 9 and 10 speed transmissions... Because GM. We've all followed their development drama the past 3 years with projects being delayed /cancelled / reintroduced / up for discussion / (or "hey let's change every launch schedule fto get out some mildly upgraded pickups"). They have no direction and I don't trust them to have a valid entry in the timeframe required, little to no work required or not. If a new vehicle intro requires this transmission to be done in certain amount of time in order to launch, then this could make the MFT fiasco look like a hangnail for Ford. And yet Ford is comfortable with doing a JV with GM, i think you'll find in the area of Auto transmissions, GM is pretty darned goodand the addition of Ford's expertise to the mix could give the pair an impressive array of FWD and RWD transmissions, not only for themselves but possibly displacing the likes of ZF which no doubt is expensive and being German, ZF will not accept any notion of inherent design problems Edited September 29, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I guess I had more faith in Ford engineers? Many large and successful companies enter into joint ventures. It has nothing to do with in-house talent but more of combining that talent with a partner to achieve greater value than could be achieved alone. Both companies get two transmission designs for a much lower cost than if they designed alone. 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.