Ford looking at the CVT option again

[akirby]

It totally depends on whether they need it for fuel economy goals or not.

[bzcat]

The 9 speed is too big, too heavy and too expensive to be used in b and c cars. The segment from <180ft/lbs is where a new transmission is needed and exactly where the packaging, weight and cost issues are for the 9 speed.

 

I agree with you about B-cars, that's why I said the 9 speed will take care of "most needs", not all needs.

 

Fiesta can probably use a CVT instead but Escape or Fusion should do fine with the 9 speed auto.

[YT90SC]

There is no permanent fix for the DPS6. There never will be. The dry clutch is a deeply flawed design and will continue to be an issue until it is replaced with a more conventional box.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I've also put many miles on a Ford Freestyle with the CVT behind the 3.0L Duratec. All in all, its not a horrible combo. The CVT really gets everything that there was to get out of that engine and the vehicle is adequately powered when unloaded. I don't really notice the dreaded "rubber band effect" but you certainly do hear it when the engine is being stressed at peak power when you have your foot in it.

 

In compacts and below, with naturally aspirated engines, CVTs do make a lot of sense. Behind an EB engine, with their broad, flat torque curves, its not really an advantage. Larger vehicles don't have the packaging constraints that lead to problems with the higher numerical geared transmissions.

[akirby]

There is no permanent fix for the DPS6. There never will be. The dry clutch is a deeply flawed design and will continue to be an issue until it is replaced with a more conventional box.

 

Daughter's 2012 almost left her stranded last night. Finally cleared up and got her home. I think it's the TCM. Going in Monday.

[Hugh]

There is no permanent fix for the DPS6. There never will be. The dry clutch is a deeply flawed design and will continue to be an issue until it is replaced with a more conventional box.

For this particular one, perhaps yes. I'm willing to still believe that dual clutch transmissions are relevant. Mazda uses a DCT and it has a torque converter with it. That may be an option to consider.

[blazerdude20]

For this particular one, perhaps yes. I'm willing to still believe that dual clutch transmissions are relevant. Mazda uses a DCT and it has a torque converter with it. That may be an option to consider.

Honda has also adopted this approach with the Acura TLX. DCT with torque converter.

 

I don't understand why though. One of the main advantages, efficiency wise, of the dual clutch is you don't have the energy loss from the torque converter. Why add a more complicated transmission, only to cut it off at the knees?

Edited January 9, 2015 by blazerdude20

[7Mary3]

CVT= customer dissatisfaction.

[Hugh]

Homda has also adopted this approach with the Acura TLX. DCT with torque converter.

 

I don't understand why though. One of the main advantages, efficiency wise, of the dual clutch is you don't have the energy loss from the torque converter. Why add a more complicated transmission, only to cut it off at the knees?

Good question! I have a couple of theories:

1. The energy loss may not be that major and the benefits of efficiency are negligible.

2. I think the style of driving an automated system may be different here in NA opposed to the ROW. Maybe drivers might have a tendency to mash the accelerator and the TC will compensate for that. Ford went the route of having an educational presentation showing how the PowerShift was different than the conventional auto. I think Honda decided to not bother and made the judgment of pandering to the market and avoided any potential backlash.

Remember the customer is always right.

[blazerdude20]

Good question! I have a couple of theories:

1. The energy loss may not be that major and the benefits of efficiency are negligible.

2. I think the style of driving an automated system may be different here in NA opposed to the ROW. Maybe drivers might have a tendency to mash the accelerator and the TC will compensate for that. Ford went the route of having an educational presentation showing how the PowerShift was different than the conventional auto. I think Honda decided to not bother and made the judgment of pandering to the market and avoided any potential backlash.

Remember the customer is always right.

Could be right.

 

I plan on test driving a TLX to see the difference between that transmission and the one in my Focus

[YT90SC]

In the early days, Dodge used a torque convertor in a manual trans. International Harvester tractors had "Torque Amplifier" transmissions in the 40's. They were both bypass-able and I would imagine that the Acura uses a similar setup. The issues with most DCT's are at roll out and shift where no doubt they use the convertor and bypass under all other operations. The loss of fuel efficiency is not from a convertor itself (especially with a modern lockup system) it is from the pump associated with pressurizing the conventional automatic's clutches, lube and cooler.

The issue with the DPS6 is the electric motor driven actuation system coupled with the clutch design itself. The TCM in the DPS6 relies on the friction coefficients of the clutches being identical each time they are applied. Contaminants on the clutches (water, coolant, engine oil, trans fluid, apply bearing grease, clutch wear material and owner applied underhood cleaners and shines) all will all alter the friction coefficient of the clutches. Wear/rust of the apply levers is also a huge factor. Again, couple it with electric motors that cannot apply as smoothly as the competition's hydraulic systems and it is a recipe for disaster.

[Hugh]

In the early days, Dodge used a torque convertor in a manual trans. International Harvester tractors had "Torque Amplifier" transmissions in the 40's. They were both bypass-able and I would imagine that the Acura uses a similar setup. The issues with most DCT's are at roll out and shift where no doubt they use the convertor and bypass under all other operations. The loss of fuel efficiency is not from a convertor itself (especially with a modern lockup system) it is from the pump associated with pressurizing the conventional automatic's clutches, lube and cooler.

The issue with the DPS6 is the electric motor driven actuation system coupled with the clutch design itself. The TCM in the DPS6 relies on the friction coefficients of the clutches being identical each time they are applied. Contaminants on the clutches (water, coolant, engine oil, trans fluid, apply bearing grease, clutch wear material and owner applied underhood cleaners and shines) all will all alter the friction coefficient of the clutches. Wear/rust of the apply levers is also a huge factor. Again, couple it with electric motors that cannot apply as smoothly as the competition's hydraulic systems and it is a recipe for disaster.

If that is the case, can you explain to an ignorant fella here the difference between a dry and wet clutch? Would a wet clutch made a difference for the DPS6?

[papilgee4evaeva]

If that is the case, can you explain to an ignorant fella here the difference between a dry and wet clutch? Would a wet clutch made a difference for the DPS6?

 

I'm not going to be the one to get into the technical differences, but it was explained to me that the wet clutch was a little less fuel efficient than the dry clutch. A little less.

 

Which has me wondering how much driveability Ford was willing to sacrifice in the name of possibly a few hundred yards per gallon.

Edited December 15, 2014 by papilgee4evaeva

[lfeg]

Wet clutches run in oil or another lubricating fluid. Dry are just that - they operate dry. Properly designed, wet running clutches will give smoother engagement and a much longer life than dry. I have seen wet clutches that have logged 40 to 50 million engagements that have no more than break-in wear. Cannot get anywhere near that with dry.

[jpd80]

Which is why Ford and its partner Getrag are working hard on light weight wet clutch replacements for the troublesome dry clutch.

For me, the US market is much more auto friendly and forcing DSG onto them was a mistake, I would have preferred that Ford simply

use the 1,5 turbo and 6AT from Fusion in the Focus and perhaps a 6-speed manual from FoE for those who must.

Edited December 15, 2014 by jpd80

[akirby]

But doesn't Ford have a wet clutch version that's used in Europe already?

[papilgee4evaeva]

But doesn't Ford have a wet clutch version that's used in Europe already?

 

Yes.

 

Thus the quandary.

[RichardJensen]

forcing DSG onto them was a mistake

 

But I thought the US market was just like the EU market?

[Biker16]

 

But I thought the US market was just like the EU market?

For the record the Dry DCT debuted in the US first and was optimize for all global products by Ford NA, not FOE.

 

BTW Richard have you driven a DCT focus of Fiesta yet?

[RichardJensen]

For the record the Dry DCT debuted in the US first and was optimize for all global products by Ford NA, not FOE.

 

BTW Richard have you driven a DCT focus of Fiesta yet?

 

Which operation led engineering and development of the Focus and Fiesta?

 

And my opinion of the product doesn't matter. I'm one guy who prefers used cars. New car buyers who are in this market do not like this transmission and Ford seems to have had higher than expected warranty costs associated with it. That's what matters.

[jpd80]

Correct.

Which makes me wonder if this is about Focus' Powershift or that the Fusion attracts a lot of these buyers instead....

 

If it's the latter, then that's the kind of internal competition GM and others would die for.

Edited December 16, 2014 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

Which operation led engineering and development of the Focus and Fiesta?

 

And my opinion of the product doesn't matter. I'm one guy who prefers used cars. New car buyers who are in this market do not like this transmission and Ford seems to have had higher than expected warranty costs associated with it. That's what matters.

 

I believe powerpacks are engineered independent of products, sir. Its like saying the FOE engineered the hybrid powertrain in the C-max, powerpacks are independent of vehicles.

 

You haven't driven one yet have you? You should.

 

Where are you getting Warranty costs from? Is that listed in investor reports too?

 

Correct.

Which makes me wonder if this is about Focus' Powershift or that the Fusion attracts a lot of these buyers instead....

 

If it's the latter, then that's the kind of internal competition GM and others would die for.

 

It is a compromise 40MPG isn't possible with any other Automatic Ford Sells.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

 

I believe powerpacks are engineered independent of products, sir

 

Where do you think the B & C powerpacks are engineered, Biker?

[Biker16]

[Biker16]

 

Where do you think the B & C powerpacks are engineered, Biker?

 

Dearborn Michigan, USA.