Jump to content
  • Custom Search


silvrsvt

Powershift transmission woes haunt Ford

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, 70 Stang said:

I'm sure Fields won't be so kind to Ford when he testifies.

But wasn't he the one in charge when that POS transmission was selected?  If so, can't totally bad mouth it and/or Ford.  Because he WAS Ford at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 92merc said:

But wasn't he the one in charge when that POS transmission was selected?  If so, can't totally bad mouth it and/or Ford.  Because he WAS Ford at the time.

Allan Mullaly was CEO during development and launch of GEN3 Focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 30 OTT 6 said:

Allan Mullaly was CEO during development and launch of GEN3 Focus.

And Dennis Kuzak was the product guy back then.  There were rumors several years back, that Kuzak retired because of the Powershift transmission problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet they continued to stuff this turd of a  transmission into what I think could have been a fantastic car,  for another 5 years after all the problems began to surface.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally it was going to have the Wet version of the transmission. It was determined they could get the same mileage and a lower cost per unit by using the dry version. Some in Engineering were warning of some durability issues with the dry version, but they were painted as "Old Ford" by new leadership, on top of the engineering depts. being gutted of old knowledge in the years during development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be year 2029, and owners will get $500 rebate e-coupons for new F series. "Peanuts"

 

Edited by 630land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the bean counters said NO to replacing the Powershift with a conventional 6 speed auto when it started having problems to save engineering costs, but doing that probably would have saved them millions in the long run. Not to mention the cost of losing your reputation with customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We rented one. A red hatch right after they came out.  Sweet looking car.  But the first thing I thought:  “What the heck is wrong with this thing?”  I was in the small car purchase mode too. So it didn’t make the list.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Fields would have signed a confidentiality clause when he left Ford so I guess he will probably just keep the company line. deflect any blame and point to one of his subordinates not effectively dealing with the situation.  He was balls deep in this but I bet you he comes up smelling of roses like Bob Lutz on a GM commentary.......

 

 

23976_377889888372_542678372_4824675_338

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

Originally it was going to have the Wet version of the transmission. It was determined they could get the same mileage and a lower cost per unit by using the dry version. Some in Engineering were warning of some durability issues with the dry version, but they were painted as "Old Ford" by new leadership, on top of the engineering depts. being gutted of old knowledge in the years during development. 

The wet clutch DCT was too expensive, that's why the dry clutch DCT was sourced. Had it simply tooled up for lighter versions of the  Ford/GM JV 6F auto, all would have been well. The DCT box came for Ford Europe pressing for it even though its markets were never fully  exposed to the consequences of the dry clutch DCT due to the wider use of manual trans  and diesels coupled to wet clutch.

There were any number of things Ford could have done once the problem was discovered but unfortunately, they chose to keep tinkering with the program, trying to get it reliable in the warranty period, that tells you where their head space was ( not on the customer).

Anyone wanting an auto Focus was better off looking elsewhere or leasing a 2.5 auto Fusion with better residual.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

Originally it was going to have the Wet version of the transmission. It was determined they could get the same mileage and a lower cost per unit by using the dry version. Some in Engineering were warning of some durability issues with the dry version, but they were painted as "Old Ford" by new leadership, on top of the engineering depts. being gutted of old knowledge in the years during development. 

Depends on what you mean by "originally".  I worked in Transmission Engineering in about 1985 when the very first Ford designed dual-clutch transmission prototype was built.  It had wet clutches.  It also used hydraulics to move the shift forks.  I did not follow the development after I left that department.  By the time I saw it again in about 2006, it had dry clutches and electric actuated shift forks.  Both of those saved a lot of weight and cost.

Luk was going to be part of a 3 way joint venture with Getrag and Ford.  Ultimately, Luk was just a supplier, same as Getrag.

Edited by theoldwizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The wet clutch DCT was too expensive, that's why the dry clutch DCT was sourced. Had it simply tooled up for lighter versions of the  Ford/GM JV 6F auto, all would have been well. The DCT box came for Ford Europe pressing for it even though its markets were never fully  exposed to the consequences of the dry clutch DCT due to the wider use of manual trans  and diesels coupled to wet clutch.

There were any number of things Ford could have done once the problem was discovered but unfortunately, they chose to keep tinkering with the program, trying to get it reliable in the warranty period, that tells you where their head space was ( not on the customer).

Anyone wanting an auto Focus was better off looking elsewhere or leasing a 2.5 auto Fusion with better residual.

"Sourced" is not the correct word.  It was a key part of the design for a LONG time because it was lighter and cheaper.

One thing that never came up in public was that the transmission was designed for "B Class" vehicles like the Fiesta, with a maximum engine size of 1.6L.  Most of the development was done on that size vehicles.  Very little it anything was changed when they decided to put it in the Focus quoth a larger engine.  Whoever spec'd it for the Focus should be the one taking all of the heat !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Let's not ignore the issues with the Fiesta too 

My brother-in-law bought a first-year Fiesta. It was gone within a year, and that was largely because of how the transmission behaved. And he had nothing against Fords, as his other vehicle at the time was a 2010 F-150.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

Depends on what you mean by "originally".  I worked in Transmission Engineering in about 1985 when the very first Ford designed dual-clutch transmission prototype was built.  It had wet clutches.  It also used hydraulics to move the shift forks.  I did not follow the development after I left that department.  By the time I saw it again in about 2006, it had dry clutches and electric actuated shift forks.  Both of those saved a lot of weight and cost.

Luk was going to be part of a 3 way joint venture with Getrag and Ford.  Ultimately, Luk was just a supplier, same as Getrag.

DPS6 DRY dual clutch 6DCT250 Powershift transmission -While the base design is Getrag’s, the finished transmission bears the stamp of TDE (Ford Motor Company Transmission and Driveline Engineering) engineers. 
Ford dictated the relevant specifications such as the package envelope, center distance, gear ratios and functional SDS requirements. 
(Ford)TDE have, for example, full responsibility for calibration and for software development. 
As a result, (Ford) TDE has more control over how the product drives and feels. 
While Getrag markets its own version of this transmission, the Ford DPS6 Powershift is differentiated by its software and controls.
Ford Motor Company
Transmission and Driveline Engineering (TDE)
36200 Plymouth Road 
Livonia, MI. 48150

I don't believe Ford Europe had their hands in this soup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Ford dealer tech on You Tube blames owners for "driving like a Grandma". Typical "blame the customer."

When dealers start closing, he will change his tune

Edited by 630land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 630land said:

A Ford dealer tech on You Tube blames owners for "driving like a Grandma". Typical "blame the customer."

When dealers start closing, he will change his tune

There's an element of truth to it in this case though. If you don't drive them hard once and a while debris builds up on the clutch packs and wears them out faster. I thought that was pretty well documented. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

"Sourced" is not the correct word.  It was a key part of the design for a LONG time because it was lighter and cheaper.

One thing that never came up in public was that the transmission was designed for "B Class" vehicles like the Fiesta, with a maximum engine size of 1.6L.  Most of the development was done on that size vehicles.  Very little it anything was changed when they decided to put it in the Focus quoth a larger engine.  Whoever spec'd it for the Focus should be the one taking all of the heat !

But if you look at the history even the lighter Fiesta with the power shift is also a problem, surely there must have been issues found during development which begs the question we’re engineers permitted to stop the job and tell management there were serious problems? (Rhetorical question btw)

Fords top down culture stifled any chance of feedback and improvements during development let alone saying like get rid of this transmission you’ve just spent a bomb on.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×