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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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...

 

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?

 

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

 

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. Ford also has the "6R" which is used in the 06 Explorer and Navigator.

 

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

 

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.

 

How about the Sable?

 

It's still not too late to mention the Windstar

 

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

(Good job U 2! )