Hydra-Matic 6T70 six speed.

FOR RELEASE: 2005-08-25

CONTACTS

New Hydra-Matic 6T70 Six-Speed Automatic Delivers Performance and Fuel Economy

Innovative, efficient transmission to debut on 2007 Saturn Aura


First GM Powertrain front-wheel drive 6-speed automatic transmission
Advanced clutch-to-clutch operation and wide 6.04:1 overall ratio spread
Co-developed by GM and Ford Motor Co.
Applicable to FWD and AWD powertrain layouts
Torque capacity to 280 lb.-ft.
Shift speeds up to 7000 rpm
32-bit intelligent controller included in sophisticated internal transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM)
Built at GM Powertrain’s assembly plant in Warren, Mich.
MILFORD, Mich. – General Motors new Hydra-Matic 6T70 six-speed automatic transmission, an advanced transmission with clutch-to-clutch shift operation for front- and all-wheel drive vehicles, will debut in the all-new 2007 Saturn Aura midsize sedan. Co-developed with Ford Motor Co., the new six-speed joins the already announced Hydra-Matic six-speed rear-wheel drive family of automatics and Allison 1000 six-speed automatic as part of GM’s mission to produce 3 million six-speed automatics annually by 2010.

The 6T70’s clutch-to-clutch operation allows for reduced complexity and compact packaging. A wide, 6.04:1 overall ratio spread helps the transmission deliver both performance and fuel economy, enabling up to 8 percent improved performance and up to 4 percent improved fuel economy when compared with current front-wheel drive four-speed automatics.

“The 6T70 offers the best of both worlds – the excitement of a performance transmission and the economy expected of an overdrive,” said Robert Vargo, assistant chief engineer, new front-wheel drive transmissions. “The joint development effort allowed both companies to maximize time and engineering talent to answer a common need for a fuel-efficient transmission that meets the performance needs of high-output, transverse-mount powertrains.”

Co-development of the transmission allowed it to reach production in less time and enabled each company to reduce development costs by as much as 50 percent. A common design and many common components are shared between GM and Ford six-speed variants, but each company developed its own controls and calibrations to tailor the shift feel of the transmission to fit their brand characteristics.

Rated for engines up to 315 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque, the 6T70 helps maximize powertrain performance and economy through its wide 6.04:1 ratio – the spread in gear ratios between first gear and sixth gear. This configuration allows for a “steep” 4.48:1 first gear, which helps deliver exceptional launch feel, and a 0.74:1 overdrive sixth gear – the “tall” overdrive gear lowers rpm at high speeds, reducing noise, vibration and harshness. Fifth gear is 1:1 or direct drive.

“The additional gear states are almost like having two transmissions in one,” said Vargo. “The low first gear provides tremendous off-the-line acceleration, but the transmission is able to use the middle gears to evenly distribute the torque and offers an overdrive sixth gear that helps delivers great fuel economy.”

Shorter steps between the gears, compared with a four-speed automatic, enhance performance and feel, as the transmission quickly finds the best gear for the vehicle speed and road conditions – there’s less “hunting” (shift busyness) on grades, for example. Also, the 6T70 offers the capability of driver shift control (DSC), which allows the driver to use tap-up, tap-down shifting to select the desired gear for specific road conditions, such as driving up a steep hill.

The Hydra-Matic 6T70’s highlights also include:

Compact dimensions of 357 mm in length and 197 mm in width for packaging convenience in a variety of front- and all-wheel drive vehicles with transverse-mounted powertrains – one the most compact transmissions in its competitive set
Clutch-to-clutch shift operation for all shifts except 1-2 reduces mechanical complexity and mass while enhancing shift feel
Integrated transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM) with driver shift control and performance algorithm shifting for shift feel and timing tailored to the driver
Internal control module reduces powertrain complexity
Auto grade braking and shift mode capability
Heat-treated gears are honed for a more precise fit, reducing noise, vibration and harshness
Narrow torque converter enhances packaging and maintains efficiency
Simple, less complex design has reduced number of seals
Adjustable capacity vane-type pump enhances fuel economy compared with non-adjustable gear-type pump
Although used in some low-volume high-performance sports cars and luxury sedans, six-speed transmissions are rare in most high-volume midsize cars and SUVs. GM and Ford Motor Co. recognized a need for a transmission that could accommodate increased powertrain performance while delivering excellent fuel economy. The compact size and reduced complexity afforded by the clutch-to-clutch design allowed engineers to answer the call for performance and economy with six forward speeds.

With its wide ratio and strong capacity, the 6T70 has the capability to transfer more torque to the drive wheels, particularly in all-wheel drive applications. It also helps vehicles such as SUVs to feel livelier at lower speeds, particularly at launch or when stepping away from a stoplight.

The 6T70’s advanced clutch-to-clutch operation is designed for smooth shift feel and packaging efficiency. All shifts except 1-2 (the transmission “free wheels” in first) feature clutch-to-clutch operation. This is achieved through three planetary gears, with three stationary clutches and two rotating clutches. It’s a simple, less complex design that enables the packaging of six gears in the space of a four-speed automatic.

A sophisticated transmission electro-hydraulic control module (TEHCM) is mounted inside the 6T70, reducing vehicle complexity. Similar to the control system used in the Hydra-Matic 6-speed rear-wheel drive transmissions, the TEHCM offers improved quality through its hard-wired connections and pre-calibration.

The unit is located entirely within the transmission and operates while bathed in transmission fluid. Locating the controller internally facilitates the modular design and assembly strategy while also shielding the unit from the outside environment.

Meanwhile, GM’s proprietary model-based controls strategy reaches a greater level of sophistication in the new six-speed FWD transmission family, said Vargo. The 32-bit system incorporates three levels of “learning” that actually allow the components to adapt to one another.

Although it is not uncommon to have a transmission-control module that adapts to the specific transmission with which it is mated, and to also have programming that optimizes transmission performance characteristics according to a variety of vehicle inputs, the new Hydra-Matic six-speed automatic adds another level of adaptability. Certain components within the major subsystems that make up the transmission also “learn” from one another – via the controller software – in a unique form of self-adaptation that maximizes the interface of all the “networked” components. This procedure takes place as the transmission “tests” itself and the interaction of its internal components before it is shipped from the assembly plant.

The TEHCM enables a host of performance-oriented and driver-controllable shift features, including performance algorithm shifting (PAS), driver shift control (DSC) “tap shift” and auto-grade braking.

The Hydra-Matic 6T70 is manufactured at GM’s Warren Transmission plant. It debuts in summer 2006, when production begins on the 2007 Saturn Aura.

Hydra-Matic 6T70 (MH2) six-speed automatic

Type:
six-speed transverse, electronically controlled, automatic overdrive transmission

Maximum engine horsepower
315

Maximum engine torque:
280 lb-ft

Maximum gearbox torque:
380 lb-ft

Gear ratios:

First:
4.48

Second:
2.87

Third:
1.84

Fourth:
1.41

Fifth:
1.00

Sixth:
0.74

Reverse:
2.88

Maximum shift speed:
7000 rpm

5-position quadrant:
P, R, N, D, (M)

Case material:
die-cast aluminum

Shift pattern:
(2) three-way on/off solenoids

Shift quality:
five variable bleed solenoids

Torque converter clutch:
variable bleed solenoid

Converter size:
258 mm

Transmission weight (kg / lb):
102 / 273 (wet)

Fluid type:
DEXRON® VI

Fluid capacity (L / qt):
9.0 / 9.5

Assembly site:
Warren, Mich.

Additional features:
Clutch-to-clutch operation (except 1-2); integrated transmission electro-hydraulic control module with driver shift control and performance algorithm shifting

Transmission sounds nice, Any chance for the other Epsilon cars getting it that same year?

Funny thing is the Allison has always been a 6-Speed. There was a "Dormant" gear in the 5-Speeds. A software change is all that was required for the *New* 6-Speed release.

Although, the 7-Speed does require an additional clutch pack but it can be done too...

Will Ford call theirs the 6T70 too? There's a lot more GM in this tranny than there is Ford.

That first gear looks really steep. Second gear is equivilent to an F-body 6-speeds first but 6th isn't the .50 that the F-body has.

I wonder if this will replace most of the 4-speeds in GM passenger cars.

That first gear looks really steep. Second gear is equivilent to an F-body 6-speeds first but 6th isn't the .50 that the F-body has.

I wonder if this will replace most of the 4-speeds in GM passenger cars.
A steep first gear allows a much milder rear gear, and thus makes the .75 OD better too.

For example, that 4.48 1st gear would only need a 2.03 rear gear to achieve the same overall gearing as an LS1 F-body (2.66/3.42). The same gear would provide a lower cruising rpm in the .75 6th than the F-body's .50 6th did.

Of course, none of that accounts for torque converter slippage in the non-lockup gears. :)

Will Ford call theirs the 6T70 too? There's a lot more GM in this tranny than there is Ford.

Good thing, too... I've grown very wary of Ford transmissions. Theirs and Nissans are not automatics that I'd want to own closing in or passing on 100k miles.

Capacity of only 280 lb/ft? Torque Management, here we come.

What torque rating does the ImpySS, MontySS, and GP GXP carry? I am sure it is over 280 lb/ft.

Capacity of only 280 lb/ft? Torque Management, here we come.

What torque rating does the ImpySS, MontySS, and GP GXP carry? I am sure it is over 280 lb/ft.

323lbs-ft. They will not be getting it but I wonder if there are plans for a 5 speed auto with higher torque capacity.

The 6 speed sounds great lets hope it fares well in real world.

And I hope that it is in other GM cars for 07. Aura can have it first but if others have to wait until 08---thats just stupid.

Capacity of only 280 lb/ft? Torque Management, here we come.

What torque rating does the ImpySS, MontySS, and GP GXP carry? I am sure it is over 280 lb/ft.

That's what I was thinking :mad:

They better have a 6T90 or something rated up to 350 lb/ft too!!!!!!!!!!!!

They better have a 6T90 or something rated up to 350 lb/ft too!!!!!!!!!!!!


I thought that's what they were doing. I thought when we learned about this 6 speed, it was for larger cars with higher output engines. Maybe a stronger version will follow shortly after.

i'm sure theres gonna be a stronger version. wasn't the C6 getting a 6 speed auto eventually?

i'm sure theres gonna be a stronger version. wasn't the C6 getting a 6 speed auto eventually?

Yes, but RWD... completely different trans, I think?

ah, overlooked that

That's what I was thinking :mad:

They better have a 6T90 or something rated up to 350 lb/ft too!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is just the FWD 6 speed that is limited to 280 ft/lbs of torque. Perhaps in developing this thing GM saw no long term need for a FWD transmission that handles V8 torque? :think: ;)

Their will probably just be a HD model like their is on the GXP now. I don't think anyone should be concerned.

"Hydra-matic" GOD! I just wunna shoot myself everytime I hear that word... Billions of dollars and a joint venture of the two top dogs in th auto business and we get another freak'n hydra-matic? :no: ...and a 280 lbs/ft torque maximum? I realize this is for FWD purposes but geez, a lot of FWD cars are alreaddy approaching that #. I hope they don't plan on keeping this around very long...

"Hydra-matic" GOD! I just wunna shoot myself everytime I hear that word... Billions of dollars and a joint venture of the two top dogs in th auto business and we get another freak'n hydra-matic? :no: ...and a 280 lbs/ft torque maximum? I realize this is for FWD purposes but geez, a lot of FWD cars are alreaddy approaching that #. I hope they don't plan on keeping this around very long...

umm...a name is just a name you know. I don't know why you are so focused on the name.

GMs automatic tranmssions have been one of there few bright spots--even car magazines agree. And among the drag racers--the turbo-hydramtic 400 and 350 are bullet proof.

280lbs-ft---is the max of GM S/C 3800 (Grand Prix GTP--or is it GT--for 06?)
But no other GM FWD V6 is that much. Even a low boost 2.8L Turbo could live behind it. I see nothing wrong with it and like oters said--a higher torque capacity one is more then possible.

I'm sure it won't be one size fits all. I beefier 6 speed for the V8 car and maybe a wimpier on the the Aveo like cars.

umm...a name is just a name you know. I don't know why you are so focused on the name.

GMs automatic tranmssions have been one of there few bright spots--even car magazines agree. And among the drag racers--the turbo-hydramtic 400 and 350 are bullet proof.

280lbs-ft---is the max of GM S/C 3800 (Grand Prix GTP--or is it GT--for 06?)
But no other GM FWD V6 is that much. Even a low boost 2.8L Turbo could live behind it. I see nothing wrong with it and like oters said--a higher torque capacity one is more then possible.
:thumb: And lets not forget the lowly powerglide. I'm sure there will be many improvements on this new trans in the coming yrs.

umm...a name is just a name you know. I don't know why you are so focused on the name.

GMs automatic tranmssions have been one of there few bright spots--even car magazines agree. And among the drag racers--the turbo-hydramtic 400 and 350 are bullet proof.

280lbs-ft---is the max of GM S/C 3800 (Grand Prix GTP--or is it GT--for 06?)
But no other GM FWD V6 is that much. Even a low boost 2.8L Turbo could live behind it. I see nothing wrong with it and like oters said--a higher torque capacity one is more then possible.
Sorry, but I just can't get over a name of a technology that was new a half century ago that we're still clinging to like the last hope. The name Hydramatic just seems so generic, old, and cheap, I feel like banging my head against the wall every time I hear it. I was really hoping that when they made a big deal out of this new joint operation with Ford that they'd be coming out with something new and innovative...but once again I was let down. We get some old generic POS with 2 more gears...yay... Don't get me wrong, I am glad that they finally decided to hang with the competition...I was just hoping for more. This transmission should be more of a stop gap than something they'll be relying on for some time to come.

...and I dunno if you've read a magazine in the past decade or not, but GM has been getting torn a new one because of their transmissions lately. Having as many as 4 total gears in even their most halo'd of cars is simply unacceptable these days. GM has been behind in the transmission wars for a long time.

I don't know how you CAN'T see anything wrong with the power/torque figure... there are alreaddy many special high performance FWD cars that are that high, what do those cars get? The axe or the old fwd 4-speeds? Or do they just get knocked down a peg in power? Are these cars still going to only have 310 HP 10 years from now too? Most bread and butter cars will be approaching that much power and torque by then... I just don't get it. How can you only have that high of a power rating when you KNOW cars are going to be having more than that soon? Knowing GM this transmission will probably be around for at least the next 15 years, looks like they'll be playing catch up again pretty soon.

I don't worry I have read plenty of car magazines. I have about 10--3" binders full of them. Yeah I see what you mean by only 4 gears---but the majority of prasie has been for the excellent opperation of the 4 speed auto.

Only latley has there been crisitsm of the number of gears.

I see what you mean---new product, new name. Its just when a products name has a good track record few companes will totally change the name.

Well I can see hp going up but torque is a little harder to come by--so thats why I see no problem with torque capacity for most of GMs V6's. Unless they are supercharged/turbo (like a 3.6L HF V6) they won't hit that wall in NA form for a long time.

the 4 speed transaxle (for RWD it would be a transmission...) that is in the Northstar powered DTS is labled 4T80E. I don't doubt that this transaxle will be replaced by a 6 speed version similar to the 6L80E.

Also, I don't understand the hate for "Hydramatic"

That TH350/400 would eat a 4L60/80 for LUNCH on the dragstrip.

I kinda like "Hydra-matic". It's certainly very well known-- how many other manufacturer's transmission names can you name? GM's transmissions are still among the very best in terms of quality, if not the number of cogs. But then again, GM's engines generally produce enough torque that they don't need a lot of closely-spaced ratios to keep the engine on boil. Also, I can't think of any other automobile manufacturer besides GM that sells its transmissions to its competitors.

I kinda like "Hydra-matic". It's certainly very well known-- how many other manufacturer's transmission names can you name? GM's transmissions are still among the very best in terms of quality, if not the number of cogs. But then again, GM's engines generally produce enough torque that they don't need a lot of closely-spaced ratios to keep the engine on boil. Also, I can't think of any other automobile manufacturer besides GM that sells its transmissions to its competitors.
bingo

Hydramatic is synonomous with GM even though it has evolved over time... much like 'Small Block'.

The new gen ZF 7/8 speed autos sounds technologically scary! :eek:

Good thing, too... I've grown very wary of Ford transmissions. Theirs and Nissans are not automatics that I'd want to own closing in or passing on 100k miles.

I'll take that as your opinion.

I have 8 vehicles with WELL over 100k miles on the original transmission, including an F250 SuperDuty Diesel among them (and we all know that 520 lb-ft of torque shifting into/out of overdrive with 15k lbs behind it is gentle on the gears).
'95 Explorer 4x4 with 227k miles on the original 4R55
'91 Explorer 4x4 with 257k miles on the original A4LD
'89 Mustang LX 5.0 with 221k miles on the original AOD
'94 Town Car with 148k miles on the AODE
I can go on, but don't see the point.

I will be the first to say that GM has had far better performance transmissions for years - especially the automatic units. Ford cuts back on their shift harshness and seems to be content with low stall speeds and lots of slip in the converters - great for smooth, mushy-feeling shifts and soft rides, but not good for performance cars.

Lentech and numerous others have proven without any doubt though, that the AOD and it's later derivatives are just as capable of performance as any other tranny out there when the correct valve bodies and converters are used and bands are adjusted properly. Ford (for some reason unknown to me) just doesn't choose to provide these units in production cars.

In fact, the AOD is a very reliable unit. In stock form, they are notorious for sluggish/mushy shifts, and delayed downshifts when the car is coasting to a stop. But they DO last well when properly serviced.

Bottom line is, if you take care of the equipment, it will take care of you.

I was hoping to see that Ford would impose some new shifting guidlines on this joint-venture that would improve shift quality. The only other benefits I see (for BOTH companies) is the reduced development costs, and the improved amortization of tooling and maintenance - since far more units/year can be used in vehicles for TWO companies instead of only one.

IMO, it was very wise for both companies to do this, and I think they should investigate ways to do it even more - like collapsible steering columns, rear suspension systems, and crash-dampening systems to name a few.
In another thread, we discussed this "joint-venture" approach at length, and I think in the end we all agreed it offers the partners considerable advantages. The things that don't apply are interiors, sheetmetal, and other aspects of a car that make it unique from model-to-model and offer appeal and styling - those things are definitely best left up to the individual carmaker.
I'm all for it.

Sorry, but I just can't get over a name of a technology that was new a half century ago that we're still clinging to like the last hope. The name Hydramatic just seems so generic, old, and cheap, I feel like banging my head against the wall every time I hear it. I was really hoping that when they made a big deal out of this new joint operation with Ford that they'd be coming out with something new and innovative...but once again I was let down. We get some old generic POS with 2 more gears...yay... Don't get me wrong, I am glad that they finally decided to hang with the competition...I was just hoping for more. This transmission should be more of a stop gap than something they'll be relying on for some time to come.

...and I dunno if you've read a magazine in the past decade or not, but GM has been getting torn a new one because of their transmissions lately. Having as many as 4 total gears in even their most halo'd of cars is simply unacceptable these days. GM has been behind in the transmission wars for a long time.

I don't know how you CAN'T see anything wrong with the power/torque figure... there are alreaddy many special high performance FWD cars that are that high, what do those cars get? The axe or the old fwd 4-speeds? Or do they just get knocked down a peg in power? Are these cars still going to only have 310 HP 10 years from now too? Most bread and butter cars will be approaching that much power and torque by then... I just don't get it. How can you only have that high of a power rating when you KNOW cars are going to be having more than that soon? Knowing GM this transmission will probably be around for at least the next 15 years, looks like they'll be playing catch up again pretty soon.


You are complaining about the name?! I know the name can carry a stigma with it, but when its a good stigma I don't see what the problem is. Plus, you are willing to condemn this tranny as just the same as an old "Hydramatic" with 2 or more cogs, but what exactly are you basing that assertion off of? Just because it has the same name? That is nonsense to me.

I dont know of anyone that talks about transmissions enough to even know how many gears they have, much more the name of them.

You are complaining about the name?! I know the name can carry a stigma with it, but when its a good stigma I don't see what the problem is. Plus, you are willing to condemn this tranny as just the same as an old "Hydramatic" with 2 or more cogs, but what exactly are you basing that assertion off of? Just because it has the same name? That is nonsense to me.
It's still the same old dull technology that's irking me. It's the basic automatic "hydramatic" transmission + 2 gears + twin clutch...Pretty much the same old gig with basically no increase in torque/HP capacity. It just doesn't make sense to me... With the big deal they made about this joint venture and all the money poured into the project I don't see how you guys aren't dissapointed too? It seems like GM could have just done this by themselves with a quarter of the funding and 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe I didn't explain my position on this clearly in the first two posts but I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I am also certainly unaware of any positive stigma attached to the word "hydramatic."

The whole reason I'm a car enthusiast to begin with is because of the '01 Camaro Z28 in SOM I saw a car dealership in highschool, and because I love seeing new idea's and technologies being used in cars. If we're going to be relying on this same archaic technology 50 years from now, I might as well just buy that '01 Z28 and take a break from being a car enthusiast till I'm in my 70's.

It's still the same old dull technology that's irking me. It's the basic automatic "hydramatic" transmission + 2 gears + twin clutch...Pretty much the same old gig with basically no increase in torque/HP capacity. It just doesn't make sense to me... With the big deal they made about this joint venture and all the money poured into the project I don't see how you guys aren't dissapointed too? It seems like GM could have just done this by themselves with a quarter of the funding and 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe I didn't explain my position on this clearly in the first two posts but I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I am also certainly unaware of any positive stigma attached to the word "hydramatic."

The whole reason I'm a car enthusiast to begin with is because of the '01 Camaro Z28 in SOM I saw a car dealership in highschool, and because I love seeing new idea's and technologies being used in cars. If we're going to be relying on this same archaic technology 50 years from now, I might as well just buy that '01 Z28 and take a break from being a car enthusiast till I'm in my 70's.


Most guys who know about GM trannies I talked to think of the hydramatic as a rock solid tranny, as in TH350 and 400. Thats what I was referring to about positive stigma.

Honestly, did you think GM would dump money into a more expensive tranny design, when this design will do everything they were looking for it to do. I do agree its torque capacity blows, but aside from that, why mess with a good thing. GM seems to have found a good use for pushrods still to this day, and they aren't exactly the most up to date technology on the market.

It's still the same old dull technology that's irking me. It's the basic automatic "hydramatic" transmission + 2 gears + twin clutch...Pretty much the same old gig with basically no increase in torque/HP capacity. It just doesn't make sense to me... With the big deal they made about this joint venture and all the money poured into the project I don't see how you guys aren't dissapointed too? It seems like GM could have just done this by themselves with a quarter of the funding and 5 or 6 years ago.

Actually friend, if you want to REALLY look into the crystal ball, mechanical transmissions in automobiles are on borrowed time. In the not-too-distant future, they will all be replaced with a direct-drive motor at each wheel, reducing weight, all wheel drive, on-demand, computer-controlled, silent as dookie, NO maintenance, no oil, no emissions, no leaks, no clutches, no bands, and not user-serviceable. The PERFECT solution.

As soon as we begin moving away from petroleum-based fueled vehicles, the mechanical tranny will be taking in it's last breath.
So why invest more than you have to just to get to that threshold?

The recent 5, 6, and 7-speed units being developed and used are a huge step forward in efficiency and better use of the engine's torque curve from where we were in the 80s and 90s. They are logical steps, if not belated. But right now, trying to make quantum leaps in mechanical transmissions is like trying to develop the most awesome 88" TV using CRT technology... with plasma, LCD, and other new technologies making screens bigger and better but thinner and lighter... it could be done, but WHY?

Seriously, I hope that makes sense to you. :)

It's still the same old dull technology that's irking me. It's the basic automatic "hydramatic" transmission + 2 gears + twin clutch...Pretty much the same old gig with basically no increase in torque/HP capacity. It just doesn't make sense to me... With the big deal they made about this joint venture and all the money poured into the project I don't see how you guys aren't dissapointed too? It seems like GM could have just done this by themselves with a quarter of the funding and 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe I didn't explain my position on this clearly in the first two posts but I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I am also certainly unaware of any positive stigma attached to the word "hydramatic."

What exactly were you expecting from a new transmission? Saying it's "the same old hydramatic" is like saying the LS2 is the same old small block. I'm guessing the shared components would fit in your lunch pail. GM has tried other automatic transmission designs (CVT, Saturn's parallel-shaft) and as it turns out the planetary gear automatic is still the best. So they've made a totally up-to-date improved version. I don't see a problem with that.

As to torque capacity, it's a trade-off like everything else. GM needs to hit cost, size, and efficiency targets. Ever notice how much bigger and heavier a 4L80E is compared to a 4L60E? Ever notice how inefficient it is (e.g. how much slower your car will run down the quarter with it)? Ever notice how much more it costs? GM designs to its target uses, and over-designing just makes it bigger, heavier, less efficient, and more costly. What would be the point?

I'll take that as your opinion.

Lotsa stuff about ford trannies


This is another issue of perception with people. I personally believe that ford transmissions are complete hunks of crap, because every person I know with a 5 speed in their mustang has replaced parts before the 75k mile mark.

Let's say I am completely wrong about their transmissions, what do you think is the number one thing people think of when you say something about a ford car? It's either going to be something about trannies being notoriously bad, or some fire thing relating to the pinto or just from being a domestic build.

GM faces perception problems as does Ford, and the public honestly doesn't care about the fact of the matter at this point anymore. They just care about how they perceive it.

This is another issue of perception with people. I personally believe that ford transmissions are complete hunks of crap, because every person I know with a 5 speed in their mustang has replaced parts before the 75k mile mark.

Let's say I am completely wrong about their transmissions, what do you think is the number one thing people think of when you say something about a ford car? It's either going to be something about trannies being notoriously bad, or some fire thing relating to the pinto or just from being a domestic build.

GM faces perception problems as does Ford, and the public honestly doesn't care about the fact of the matter at this point anymore. They just care about how they perceive it.

I can't speak on the reliability of a Ford tranny, but ProudPony is certainly right when he says they are nowhere near GM in putting a performance tranny in a car. I have had some experience in an 01 auto GT Mustang, and comparing this auto to the auto GM uses in the Fbodies, there is no comparison. The Mustang auto is slow, soft, and never wants to downshift. It also always wanted to shift into overdrive at too low of a speed, and shudders when it tries to. I know guys modify these trannies to better fit a performance application, but stock they are pretty crappy.

...every person I know with a 5 speed in their mustang has replaced parts before the 75k mile mark.

First-up, I hope you realize that Ford doesn't make their own manual trannys anymore. They are outsourced to Borg-Warner, Tremec, Dana, Mitsubishi, and Toyo-Kogyo. (Don't laugh, because GM, Dodge, and everyone else is doing it too - have been for years.)

That said, are you aware that he same T5 manual 5-speed in the Mustang since 1984, made by Tremec, was the EXACT same unit used in Camaros, S-10s, Dodges, and other vehicles? It has been used in SUV's, trucks, passenger cars, and everything else.

In fact, I happen to have Tremec's own performance application chart right here in front of me, so I will provide you with a breakdown...
Tremec's part number for the T5 is 1352-000-xxx, where xxx is the application and specifies the gear ratios, OD ratio, and Tq capacity (bearing-related).
GM's 1985 "T"-trucks as 1352-000-191
Ford 1992 Mustang 5.0L as -208
Ford 1982-1993 Mustang 5.0L as -239
Ford 1994 Mustang 5.0L as -246
GM 1996 Camaro/Firebird 3.8L as -247
Ford (aftermarket) 1993 and prior (all) -260
There's about 3-dozen more, but I ain't got that much time!

I will not make excuses for problems - they simply should not occurr... period.
But let's look at this for just a second...
The Tremec was rated for a torque capacity of 300 ft-lbs - enough to handle the stock 5.0 producing exactly that amount. Now, just how many 5.0 Mustangs stayed stock for long? So after a couple of bolt-ons and a good tune, you are now exceeding the rated capacity of the tranny. And likewise, if you mod, you are LIKELY to be the kind of person to pound on the car a little from time to time, right? So now we can safely say we have exceeded the rating of the tranny AND we are pounding on it to boot. Can't really expect it to last forever under those conditions. :no:

I will admit that Ford should have put more capacity into the transmission - I have wanted that many times myself - especially when swapping a World Class T5 into one of my SSP cars recently to handle some racing abuse. But even that particular T5 that was being removed from a Florida Highway Patrol car lasted 144K miles, and it was the original, unrebuilt tranny because the VIN # of the car is stamped into the side of the gearbox housing, and all of the clutch, plate, throw-out, and pivot arm parts had For part #s on them, and there was Ford engine gray paint across the seam between the bell housing and the engine block. For a stock T5 to take patrol-car abuse until retirement is remarkable, and this one went on for another 60k miles after the auction. (I replaced it because the synchronizers were shot between 1 and 2, but everything else was OK. I opted for the World Class because I knew I was going to road-race it and wanted the improved torque capacity and the better ratios in 1, 2, and OD.)

So I guess if I am honest - I think Ford copped-out on beefing-up the Tremec until they went to the T45 used on the mod-motor cars. I guess they were making too much money on upgrade parts and replacement trannys, cause (as you say) they sold a bunch of 'em, and still are today.

Summarizing - let's not say the Tremec T5 was a "bad" transmission just because many Mustang guys exceeded their rated capacity and killed them. Let's DO say Ford made a marginally bad call to put a tranny in a car that they KNEW would be modded and exceed the capability of the transmission easily. With the T45, and later the T56 used in the Cobra - they have done MUCH better in their choices.

Back to the auto trannies now... :cool:

First-up, I hope you realize that Ford doesn't make their own manual trannys anymore. They are outsourced to Borg-Warner, Tremec, Dana, Mitsubishi, and Toyo-Kogyo. (Don't laugh, because GM, Dodge, and everyone else is doing it too - have been for years.)

That said, are you aware that he same T5 manual 5-speed in the Mustang since 1984, made by Tremec, was the EXACT same unit used in Camaros, S-10s, Dodges, and other vehicles? It has been used in SUV's, trucks, passenger cars, and everything else.

In fact, I happen to have Tremec's own performance application chart right here in front of me, so I will provide you with a breakdown...
Tremec's part number for the T5 is 1352-000-xxx, where xxx is the application and specifies the gear ratios, OD ratio, and Tq capacity (bearing-related).
GM's 1985 "T"-trucks as 1352-000-191
Ford 1992 Mustang 5.0L as -208
Ford 1982-1993 Mustang 5.0L as -239
Ford 1994 Mustang 5.0L as -246
GM 1996 Camaro/Firebird 3.8L as -247
Ford (aftermarket) 1993 and prior (all) -260
There's about 3-dozen more, but I ain't got that much time!

I will not make excuses for problems - they simply should not occurr... period.
But let's look at this for just a second...
The Tremec was rated for a torque capacity of 300 ft-lbs - enough to handle the stock 5.0 producing exactly that amount. Now, just how many 5.0 Mustangs stayed stock for long? So after a couple of bolt-ons and a good tune, you are now exceeding the rated capacity of the tranny. And likewise, if you mod, you are LIKELY to be the kind of person to pound on the car a little from time to time, right? So now we can safely say we have exceeded the rating of the tranny AND we are pounding on it to boot. Can't really expect it to last forever under those conditions. :no:

I will admit that Ford should have put more capacity into the transmission - I have wanted that many times myself - especially when swapping a World Class T5 into one of my SSP cars recently to handle some racing abuse. But even that particular T5 that was being removed from a Florida Highway Patrol car lasted 144K miles, and it was the original, unrebuilt tranny because the VIN # of the car is stamped into the side of the gearbox housing, and all of the clutch, plate, throw-out, and pivot arm parts had For part #s on them, and there was Ford engine gray paint across the seam between the bell housing and the engine block. For a stock T5 to take patrol-car abuse until retirement is remarkable, and this one went on for another 60k miles after the auction. (I replaced it because the synchronizers were shot between 1 and 2, but everything else was OK. I opted for the World Class because I knew I was going to road-race it and wanted the improved torque capacity and the better ratios in 1, 2, and OD.)

So I guess if I am honest - I think Ford copped-out on beefing-up the Tremec until they went to the T45 used on the mod-motor cars. I guess they were making too much money on upgrade parts and replacement trannys, cause (as you say) they sold a bunch of 'em, and still are today.

Summarizing - let's not say the Tremec T5 was a "bad" transmission just because many Mustang guys exceeded their rated capacity and killed them. Let's DO say Ford made a marginally bad call to put a tranny in a car that they KNEW would be modded and exceed the capability of the transmission easily. With the T45, and later the T56 used in the Cobra - they have done MUCH better in their choices.

Back to the auto trannies now... :cool:


Well that all works in some senses, but the only people I know who had 5 speed mustangs have stock v6's....so yeah. I don't actually know anyone who has owned a 5 speed GT. To me, when I can point out 5 or 6 people who have had mustangs, both brand new and used, and not one of them has lasted beyond 75k stock miles, something is going on there.

My real point was only that, a lot of people think Ford trannys are crap. Regardless of whether they are or not, even if Toyota and Ford shared the same tranny, the perception is what drives the market. You get my point there?

My real point was only that, a lot of people think Ford trannys are crap. Regardless of whether they are or not, even if Toyota and Ford shared the same tranny, the perception is what drives the market. You get my point there?

Oh yeah... I get your point! No doubt about it! :thumb:

Fords been using this trans since they started building the Ford 500. Its called the "6F".... GM always has to make their products sound so amazing. :D Ford also has the "6R" which is used in the 06 Explorer and Navigator.

Oh yeah... I get your point! No doubt about it! :thumb:


Good deal man. I wasn't really trying to talk crap on ford transmissions, it just kinda spilled out. :D

Good deal man. I wasn't really trying to talk crap on ford transmissions, it just kinda spilled out. :D


Im a diehard Ford guy. And I know Proud is too for the most part. If you would of mentioned the Taurus. You would of had a case. But you missed ur chance. :D

Im a diehard Ford guy. And I know Proud is too for the most part. If you would of mentioned the Taurus. You would of had a case. But you missed ur chance. :D

How about the Sable? :D

It's still not too late to mention the Windstar :D

Man I tell ya, If ya leave a door open someone's gonna walk thru it. :D

(Good job U 2! :bow: )

Capacity of only 280 lb/ft? Torque Management, here we come.

What torque rating does the ImpySS, MontySS, and GP GXP carry? I am sure it is over 280 lb/ft.

280LB / FT would fit some of the lower models of the cars mentioned, but in reality makes little sense to have such a sexy trans to put into base and Econo cars, but meh.

32-bit intelligent controller included in sophisticated internal transmission electro-hydraulic control module
Wow!!:shock:

That's twice as fast as my Sega Genesis!:eek:



Seriously though, sounds like a good tranny.:)

I was reading through the Sept. 05 issue of Road&Track about the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti and noticed something that would be interesting to add to this thread...

When talking about Ferrari's $10k F1 paddle shift transmission here is what they say...

"...But put it into the Automatic mode and you might wish for a good GM Hydra-Matic..." :D

I was reading through the Sept. 05 issue of Road&Track about the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti and noticed something that would be interesting to add to this thread...

When talking about Ferrari's $10k F1 paddle shift transmission here is what they say...

"...But put it into the Automatic mode and you might wish for a good GM Hydra-Matic..." :D

:shock:

I was reading through the Sept. 05 issue of Road&Track about the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti and noticed something that would be interesting to add to this thread...

When talking about Ferrari's $10k F1 paddle shift transmission here is what they say...

"...But put it into the Automatic mode and you might wish for a good GM Hydra-Matic..." :D
Good find! :thumb: Soak that in PPL! ;) I highly doubt, you'd ever read something like that in car & drivel.

oh yeah, that Ferrari costs just over a quarter of a million US dollars :D