Jump to content

Ford workers break their silence on faulty transmissions: 'My hands are dirty. I feel horrible'


Recommended Posts

Well, I'll throw this one out there.  My brother owns a 2012 Focus Titanium.  He has over 130k miles on it.  All transmission parts are TOTALLY original.  Never had any clutch issues, leaks, or TCM replacement.  Not even a shudder.

 

However, I chalk most of that up to the fact that he drives about 100 miles a DAY in commuting to/from his job.  So it has a fair amount of highway miles.

 

He did have a lot of clunky in his front end about a year ago.  I forget what exactly the shop replaced.  It wasn't just some bushings.  It was a large subframe type of replacement.  But that's been his only issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 92merc said:

He did have a lot of clunky in his front end about a year ago.  I forget what exactly the shop replaced.  It wasn't just some bushings.  It was a large subframe type of replacement.  But that's been his only issue.

 

I suspect it was a combination of struts, control arms/ball joints and sway bar links and not the whole subframe. That's purely based on my own experience anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Well, I'll throw this one out there.  My brother owns a 2012 Focus Titanium.  He has over 130k miles on it.  All transmission parts are TOTALLY original.  Never had any clutch issues, leaks, or TCM replacement.  Not even a shudder.  However, I chalk most of that up to the fact that he drives about 100 miles a DAY in commuting to/from his job.  So it has a fair amount of highway miles.

 

Ditto for our 2012 Focus.  Going on 100,000 miles.  Original clutches and seals.  The transmission software has been re-flashed twice, but other than that, all original.  It drives fine, but like your brother, the vast majority of our mies are on the highway with minimal shifting.  

 

We're getting rid of it next spring/summer, the issue now is what to replace it with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2019 at 12:42 PM, HotRunrGuy said:

 

 I wonder if anyone has been able to determine if any losses have occurred as far as resale/trade-in value?  With all the negative press on these vehicles, I can't imagine that people are running out to purchase used ones.

 

HRG


When I bought my Ranger at the beginning of this year, Ford gave me $4k for my ‘14 SE hatch. It had 60k miles.  
 

For comparison, a similarly equipped Mazda 3 had a $2-3k higher trade-in value at the time. 

Edited by Anthony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

At the root of the problem was Ford’s decision to use dry clutch technology for the transmission. The guts of a dual-clutch transmission are more like a manual than a conventional automatic transmission, but the driver does not have to shift gears. These transmissions can improve fuel economy and weigh less than a conventional automatic – and also are less expensive to build.

There are two kinds of dual-clutch transmissions: wet-clutch and dry-clutch. The difference is whether oil lubricates the clutches. The DPS6 was a dry-clutch design.

“What in the world are you thinking going with a dry clutch?” one engineer asked. “The friction coefficient is inconsistent, and it creates problems. But this was someone’s baby. If a manager came up with an idea, people would be afraid to say no. At first, it was just on paper. Someone should have said something. They should have. The idea should’ve been killed. No one knew how it was even considered – and then implemented – in the Focus and Fiesta.

 

So someone DID raise this issue during development.  FWIW, I feel a little better knowing that not everyone in the building was in lock-step with the dry-clutch design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2019 at 5:30 PM, twintornados said:

I read the joke of an article...pure rubbish and yellow journalism at its sleazy finest.

There's nothing wrong with the article. All it basically says is that some former Ford engineers also think this transmission is a piece of junk. I think the only people who think this is a good transmission is probably the executives at the time because it maximized profit even if it was unreliable with several known defects. This transmission is a piece of junk and there is no way to spin it any other way.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

There's nothing wrong with the article.

 

I agree. The article's level of detail is amazing. Phoebe Wall Howard is a very talented journalist, she does a great job combining technical details of the DPS6 fiasco with personal stories from Ford employees, dealers, and customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger issue to me was the lack of process controls that allowed the original engineering issues to be hidden by middle managers.  I hope that’s been fixed.

 

It’s also very disappointing that they replaced it with the 6F in ROW but not here though to be fair that could have been a supply and/or contract issue and not just cost savings.  That inside story would be very interesting.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, papilgee4evaeva said:

 

So someone DID raise this issue during development.  FWIW, I feel a little better knowing that not everyone in the building was in lock-step with the dry-clutch design.

I actually worked on the very first prototype of the DPS6 back in the midlde 80s.  It had wet clutches.  It also had a pump and a valve body because all of the forks were moved my hydraulics (everything on the DPS6 is moved by electric motors).  Our transmission was too heavy to be practical even in a C class (Escort/Focus) car.  The driving factor was weight reduction and cost reduction.

I do know that Luk (originally a German company, well known and respected in the industry) was part of a three way joint venture along with Getrag, but pulled out of the partnership (I think they were still the exclusive supplier of clutch discs) a few years before production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, theoldwizard said:

I actually worked on the very first prototype of the DPS6 back in the midlde 80s.  It had wet clutches.  It also had a pump and a valve body because all of the forks were moved my hydraulics (everything on the DPS6 is moved by electric motors).  Our transmission was too heavy to be practical even in a C class (Escort/Focus) car.  The driving factor was weight reduction and cost reduction.

I do know that Luk (originally a German company, well known and respected in the industry) was part of a three way joint venture along with Getrag, but pulled out of the partnership (I think they were still the exclusive supplier of clutch discs) a few years before production.

Where was the breakdown in your estimation Wizard? I thought a major component like a transmission (especially a new design) couldn’t be approved unless it could endure rigorous testing?

 

Im a proud “Ford guy” but damn they are frustrating sometimes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

The bigger issue to me was the lack of process controls that allowed the original engineering issues to be hidden by middle managers.  I hope that’s been fixed.

 

It’s also very disappointing that they replaced it with the 6F in ROW but not here though to be fair that could have been a supply and/or contract issue and not just cost savings.  That inside story would be very interesting.

 

 

The middle managers were hiding the engineering issues because they were afraid of negative consequences if they had spoken up about them. That is the bigger issue to me.

 

And Ford should not have withheld the 6F from this market, given that a working automatic is far more crucial in this market than it is for the rest of the world. Aside from the problematic transmission, the Focus was a nice compact car.

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, grbeck said:

The middle managers were hiding the engineering issues because they were afraid of negative consequences if they had spoken up about them. That is the bigger issue to me.

 

And Ford should not have withheld the 6F from this market, given that a working automatic is far more crucial in this market than it is for the rest of the world. Aside from the problematic transmission, the Focus was a nice compact car.

 

As I always say about the Focus, "It was a fantastic car let down by a shitty transmission".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grbeck said:

The middle managers were hiding the engineering issues because they were afraid of negative consequences if they had spoken up about them. That is the bigger issue to me.

 

They were probably afraid of the negative consequences of not bringing up these issues sooner as opposed to management not wanting to hear bad news.   I know if I was in charge and somebody knowingly withheld that type of information they'd be looking for another job.  I actually worked for a VP like that and it was refreshing - you never had to worry about whether you should or shouldn't say something.

 

A good development process would have brought these issues to light sooner and not allowed these managers to hide the problems until it was too late.  You'll always have individuals who do the wrong thing but the process should catch those sooner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

They were probably afraid of the negative consequences of not bringing up these issues sooner as opposed to management not wanting to hear bad news.   I know if I was in charge and somebody knowingly withheld that type of information they'd be looking for another job.  I actually worked for a VP like that and it was refreshing - you never had to worry about whether you should or shouldn't say something.

 

A good development process would have brought these issues to light sooner and not allowed these managers to hide the problems until it was too late.  You'll always have individuals who do the wrong thing but the process should catch those sooner.

 

It's part of basic frontline management training, I remember it was a module that discussed reporting to senior management and included any issues/ potential threats  that were not closed out by subordinates and if that continued past a set deadline, it had to be elevated whether or not you had remedial action in place - the decision and oversight is no longer yours on your own.

 

The biggest issue for me was to overcome "self" and a fear of looking foolish or incompetent because I couldn't get things done, you have to swallow  that pride and and keep superiors informed of everything that is not progressing and cannot be closed out.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The biggest issue for me was to overcome "self" and a fear of looking foolish or incompetent because I couldn't get things done, you have to swallow  that pride and and keep superiors informed of everything that is not progressing and cannot be closed out.

 

And yet, if the article is to be believed, current employee's were not willing to be identified, for fear of reprisal. Sounds to me like the system is still broken.

 

HRG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

And yet, if the article is to be believed, current employee's were not willing to be identified, for fear of reprisal. Sounds to me like the system is still broken.

 

HRG

The difference is that current employees are not permitted to speak to the press without it being cleared by superiors, PR and Legal. A breach like that will get you fired on the spot, they call you in to discuss and half way through you realize it's an exit interview, your computer and email are already locked out, escorted back to your desk to take personal belongings and escorted off the property.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The difference is that current employees are not permitted to speak to the press without it being cleared by superiors, PR and Legal. A breach like that will get you fired on the spot, they call you in to discuss and half way through you realize it's an exit interview, your computer and email are already locked out, escorted back to your desk to take personal belongings and escorted off the property.

 

Looking at it that way, it makes perfect sense,,,,

 

Thanks, HRG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

There's nothing wrong with the article. All it basically says is that some former Ford engineers also think this transmission is a piece of junk. I think the only people who think this is a good transmission is probably the executives at the time because it maximized profit even if it was unreliable with several known defects. This transmission is a piece of junk and there is no way to spin it any other way.

 

The "article" is pure tripe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, akirby said:

 

They were probably afraid of the negative consequences of not bringing up these issues sooner as opposed to management not wanting to hear bad news.   I know if I was in charge and somebody knowingly withheld that type of information they'd be looking for another job.  I actually worked for a VP like that and it was refreshing - you never had to worry about whether you should or shouldn't say something.

 

A good development process would have brought these issues to light sooner and not allowed these managers to hide the problems until it was too late.  You'll always have individuals who do the wrong thing but the process should catch those sooner.

 

Based on other articles, I got the impression that the directive to use the transmission no matter what, and somehow get the cars out the door, came from someone at or near the top. Middle management was not the source of the problem.

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grbeck said:

 

Based on other articles, I got the impression that the directive to use the transmission no matter what, and somehow get the cars out the door, came from someone at or near the top. Middle management was not the source of the problem.

 

I think both are true.

 

I think in the beginning when the engineers raised concerns they were ignored by lower level supervisors because they were afraid of not meeting cost targets otherwise.

 

Once the problems came to light it was too late in the program to make the change without major consequences, so at that point upper mgt decided to forge ahead.

 

Just a guess though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

I think both are true.

 

I think in the beginning when the engineers raised concerns they were ignored by lower level supervisors because they were afraid of not meeting cost targets otherwise.

 

Once the problems came to light it was too late in the program to make the change without major consequences, so at that point upper mgt decided to forge ahead.

 

Just a guess though.

 

The sad part is that the not only was the rest of the car quite good, but the previous generation Focus had earned a decent reputation for reliability (once Ford got the bugs worked out of it). We had a 2005 Focus SE sedan that we traded with 235,000 miles on the odometer. The only major problem was an alternator failure at about 190,000 miles. Ford promptly threw all of that away with this transmission fiasco.

 

My wife wanted a crossover, so the Focus was traded on an off-lease 2014 Escape. But I wanted a car. By the time I was ready to trade, this transmission's reputation was well-known, and a manual wasn't an option (my wife can't drive one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2019 at 1:12 AM, akirby said:

 

It’s also very disappointing that they replaced it with the 6F in ROW but not here though to be fair that could have been a supply and/or contract issue and not just cost savings.  That inside story would be very interesting.

Global Focus program had different engines and trans requirements. From 2011, Western Europe Ford Focus was mostly 1.6 & 2.0 diesel in 6-speed manual and wet clutch powershift autos with manual only on Gasoline 1.3, 1.6 and a 1.6 EB as a sports model below the 2.0 EB ST. The ROW got the 2.0    Diesel and 2.0 DI gasoline in manual and powershift, the latter being the dry clutch DP6S.

 

In 2015, the ROW Focus moved from the 2.0 DI gasoline engine to the 1.5 I-4 EB, this forced a change to the 6F auto as used in the Escape and the 6-speed manual continued as before. 
 

In Europe, the 6F auto was an addition to the 1.5 EB and filled the gap of the missing gasoline auto and a solution to the DP6S in ROW. 
 

By 2015, Ford US probably knew it was ending Focus production at MAP and most likely couldn’t justify changing engines and transmissions, even though it offered the 1.0 EB and 6F automatic

 

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/16/2019 at 10:49 AM, Stray Kat said:

Where was the breakdown in your estimation Wizard? I thought a major component like a transmission (especially a new design) couldn’t be approved unless it could endure rigorous testing?

The "breakdown" came from Product Planning and Mid-Level Engineering ("Ya know, if we could use that DPS6 in the Focus, we would save a lot of money !")

 

Most of the development/testing was already done by then in the Fiesta with a 1.6L engine.  They were willing to accept some harsh engagements in that car, but the problem was much worse in a heavier car with a bigger engine.  Everyone knew that a "wet" clutch was the answer, but that ship had sailed a long, LONG time ago !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...