Ford refuses to use 9-speed GM's automatic transmission

[akirby]

You can use Edge.

(Ducks and runs)

Go wash your mouth out with soap.

 

I wonder if the next version will be Expedition?

[fordmantpw]

Plus I hate to pass up a chance to dis Microsoft.

 

Annnnd the truth comes out!

[akirby]

Annnnd the truth comes out!

Yeah - that was big secret! NOT!

[papilgee4evaeva]

It was specific to the initial 9 speed design in specific vehicles. Ford thought the 8 speed ratios worked better. 8 speed trannys are common. 9 and 10 speeds are not outside Ford and GM.

 

FCA (9), J/LR (9), Mercedes (9) and Honda (9, 10).

[akirby]

 

FCA (9), J/LR (9), Mercedes (9) and Honda (9, 10).

 

I stand corrected. I only remember the 8 speeds.

[papilgee4evaeva]

 

I stand corrected. I only remember the 8 speeds.

 

I forgot to add in Toyota (Lexus) using a 10-speed now.

 

Gotta remember, though, Ford is quite literally one of the last mfrs to go beyond 6 speeds, if not THE last.

[bzcat]

 

FCA (9), J/LR (9), Mercedes (9) and Honda (9, 10).

 

FCA, JLR and Honda all use ZF9H which is the transverse version of ZF8H used by everyone.

 

Mercedes has its own in-house developed 7 or 9 speed auto.

[rperez817]

 

FCA, JLR and Honda all use ZF9H which is the transverse version of ZF8H used by everyone.

 

Mercedes has its own in-house developed 7 or 9 speed auto.

 

ZF 9HP had many calibration issues early on. Lots of complaints about poor shift quality. Most of those have been fixed by now though via software updates.

 

GM 9TXX has been universally praised for smooth, responsive performance. They took the time to get things right before putting the tranny in production vehicles.

[papilgee4evaeva]

FCA, JLR and Honda all use ZF9H which is the transverse version of ZF8H used by everyone.

 

Mercedes has its own in-house developed 7 or 9 speed auto.

 

I'm not so sure that the 9HP and 8HP are that closely related, except for the manufacturer.

 

Also, Honda just came out with their in-house 10-speed. I think it's gonna replace the ZF box before long.

[theoldwizard]

First, I have never heard that Ford agreed to BUY transmission from GM. Everything I ever read said they were doing joint development. Once prototype were "proved" out, each company made minor changes to the final designs. I was told by one Ford transmission engineer that there were "no common part" in the 6 speed GM and Ford transmissions.

 

I had a god friend, who 20+ years ago, was working in Ford Research on future automatic transmission designs. He told me, anything over 6 speed was probably "not worth it" because the cost/weight was more than the potential fuel economy benefits. Admittedly this was before some other smart mechanical engineers figured out how to make the compound epicyclic gear sets found in today's 8/9/10 speed automatics.

 

10 speed on an F150 makes sense because of the huge difference in (potential) load from empty to max GVW.

[jpd80]

The new transmission is called 8F57.

 

With the amount of skip shifting done in these types of gearboxes, maybe Ford was

more than satisfied with the result and just didn't need the extra gear. (save money)

(GM basically saying the extra gear made the gearbox feel creamy smooth)

[akirby]

That means it should handle all transverse engines including V6 Ecoboosts. The current V6 ecoboost engine is the 6F55.

[jpd80]

That means it should handle all transverse engines including V6 Ecoboosts. The current V6 ecoboost engine is the 6F55.

I could imagine added cost with changing components for smaller lighter units may be self defeating,

beginning to see this as a very smart move to streamline delivery of gearboxes...

Edited May 1, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

I could imagine added cost with changing components for smaller lighter units may be self defeating,

beginning to see this as a very smart move to streamline delivery of gearboxes...

 

Also remember the problems with the 6F35 - there were very few complaints about the 6F50 and 6F55 outside of the OSS/TSS sensors having to be replaced.

 

It might make sense to have 2 versions though - one for smaller engines if there is a big savings in weight, cost and mpg. Otherwise maybe just go with the 8F57 across the board.

[pffan1990]

Not to throw off the thread topic, but what does the final two digits mean in the transmission name? Such as 6F35? What does 35 mean? I'm guessing add the 0 to it to show 350 torque limit?

Back on topic though, I don't see a problem with Ford using the revised 8-speed if they feel it's adequate enough to use (saving costs and so forth) just as long as it works and reliable.

[akirby]

Not to throw off the thread topic, but what does the final two digits mean in the transmission name? Such as 6F35? What does 35 mean? I'm guessing add the 0 to it to show 350 torque limit?

Back on topic though, I don't see a problem with Ford using the revised 8-speed if they feel it's adequate enough to use (saving costs and so forth) just as long as it works and reliable.

It references the torque capacity of the transmission at the input shaft (after the torque converter). And yes you add a 0 to the end.

 

There is conflicting information as to whether its lb/ft or newton/meters. Even from the same source (retired Ford transmission engineer). The torque converter can multiply engine torque considerably - thats why its rated so much higher than the engine output.

 

Suffice it to say a 8F57 will handle the 2.7LEB and the 3.0LEB with no problem. I dont think Ford is going to keep using the 3.5LEB in transverse applications.

Edited May 1, 2018 by akirby

[pffan1990]

It references the torque capacity of the transmission at the input shaft (after the torque converter). And yes you add a 0 to the end.

 

There is conflicting information as to whether its lb/ft or newton/meters. Even from the same source (retired Ford transmission engineer). The torque converter can multiply engine torque considerably - thats why its rated so much higher than the engine output.

 

Suffice it to say a 8F57 will handle the 2.7LEB and the 3.0LEB with no problem. I dont think Ford is going to keep using the 3.5LEB in transverse applications.

That makes sense how you explain it. I had thought the 6F35 was the transmission used in the transverse 3.5L EB like in Flex for example. So if it's torque of 350 after the torque converter, I'm guessing it's not the transmission for the 3.5L EB front drive then. What engines were the 6F50 and 55? I'll have to start looking around Google searches for any further questions I may have as to not throw this thread off topic. I also agree that Ford may no longer use 3.5L EB in transverse application considering the more refinements and progress made in the 2.7L and 3.0L especially with the fact that the 3.0L EB has more engine torque (400) in Continental than 350 in Taurus/Flex.

[akirby]

6F15 is used with the 1.0Lecoboost. 6F35 is used with the 2.5L I4, 1.5LEB and 2.0EB. 6F50 is used with the 3.5L and 3.7L V6 (non turbo). 6F55 is used with the 2.7L and 3.5L Ecoboost.

 

The 3.5LEB had to be torque limited to be used in transverse applications.

[theoldwizard]

Suffice it to say a 8F57 will handle the 2.7L EB and the 3.0L EB with no problem. I don't think Ford is going to keep using the 3.5L EB in transverse applications.

Concur with both of your speculations !

 

8F57 would be overkill for traverse mounted 2.0L EB or 2.3L EB (is the 2.3L EB used in any traverse mounted applications ?) and 2.5L (non turbo, if it used anymore). Is there going to be a smaller version of the 8F57 ?

Edited May 2, 2018 by theoldwizard

[CurtisH]

Concur with both of your speculations !

 

8F57 would be overkill for traverse mounted 2.0L EB or 2.3L EB (is the 2.3L EB used in any traverse mounted applications ?) and 2.5L (non turbo, if it used anymore). Is there going to be a smaller version of the 8F57 ?

The 2.3 EB is used in the MKC and the Explorer. Its also in the Focus RS, but that model only uses a manual transmission.

[akirby]

Concur with both of your speculations !

 

8F57 would be overkill for traverse mounted 2.0L EB or 2.3L EB (is the 2.3L EB used in any traverse mounted applications ?) and 2.5L (non turbo, if it used anymore). Is there going to be a smaller version of the 8F57 ?

It does seem like overkill for smaller engines, that’s why I think there might be a lighter duty version in the 8F35 range for the 1.5L, 2.0L and 2.3L EB transverse applications. Unless it’s simply cheaper to build one version for all of them.

[2b2]

will check the thread more closely later but

since there seem to be 3 diff 8-speed trannys

will they all share the SAME numeric-pattern for designations?

or will we be able tell if it's High-output / ordinary / cheapo?[just for hybrids?]

Edited May 2, 2018 by 2b2

[akirby]

since there seem to be 3 diff 8-speed trannys

will they all share the SAME numeric-pattern for designations?

or will we be able tell if it's High-output / ordinary / cheapo?[just for hybrids?]

 

3 different trannys has not been confirmed - that was just one unconfirmed source. In any event they'll have different designations.

[fuzzymoomoo]

will check the thread more closely later but

since there seem to be 3 diff 8-speed trannys

will they all share the SAME numeric-pattern for designations?

or will we be able tell if it's High-output / ordinary / cheapo?[just for hybrids?]

I expect future hybrids to continue using the E-CVT with updates.

[jpd80]

Concur with both of your speculations !

 

8F57 would be overkill for traverse mounted 2.0L EB or 2.3L EB (is the 2.3L EB used in any traverse mounted applications ?) and 2.5L (non turbo, if it used anymore). Is there going to be a smaller version of the 8F57 ?

Considering that the first vehicles likely to get the 8-speed auto this year will be Edge / MKX and probably the Lincoln cars,

I can see why Ford went with the 8F57 first. I'd expect at least one lighter version for the smaller Asian/European engines.