backtop


Print 138 comment(s) - last by S3anister.. on Jan 29 at 7:46 PM


Powershift: Ford's new twin-clutch gearbox by Getrag  (Source: AutoBlog)

The new dual-clutch will first be featured in a wet-clutch version in the European Ford Fusion. A dry clutch version, which is even lighter and more efficient is coming to the 2010 American version of the recently released European Ford Fiesta, shown here.  (Source: Channel4.com)
Ford's new design will help it save weight, increase fuel efficiency

When it comes to performance cars, manuals have long held an edge over automatic transmissions, due to faster shifting of gears.  However, dual clutch systems have brought the best of worlds with not only faster shifting, but by allowing for drivers to shift gears without using a clutch.  Each clutch is assigned half the gears with the odd gears being assigned to one clutch and the evens to the other.

While dual clutch gearboxes were invented before World War II and have been in production cars since the 1980s, until recently they were only in high end performance cars by Porsche and others.  In the past couple years, that has finally changed with German car maker Volkswagen bringing its Direct-Shift Gearbox, a dual clutch system, to market.  The speedy shifter is in many of its vehicles and those of its subsidiary Audi.

Automatic transmissions on the market use costly torque converters.  Most dual clutch systems use wet multi-plate clutches, including most of Volkswagen's offerings, different than traditional clutches. 

Now Ford is stepping up to the dual clutch plate announcing that its dual clutch gearbox which debuted at the Detroit's North American International Auto Show 2009 in the Lincoln Concept C and the Volvo S60 Concept will be officially moving into its lineup.

The new gearbox, known as PowerShift, is supplied by Getrag.  It was previously hinted at during launch events for the upcoming rerelease of the Ford Fiesta.  Ford's first iteration of the new double clutch is a wet clutch system.  The first vehicle to receive it will be the European Focus, available with a 2.0L diesel engine.

A dry twin-clutch is coming to the Fiesta, which will be lighter and more efficient.  Both units will offer full automatic control or clutchless manual shifting. 

The weight of the 6-speed PowerShift gearbox (wet) is 30 lbs less than the current 4-speed automatic gearbox found on the European Focus.  The dry gearbox should be even lighter.  The weight reductions on the Focus's gearbox alone will account to a 9 percent increase in fuel economy, according to Ford.

The new feature helps Ford fuel its gas saving initiatives.  Unlike Chrysler and GM, Ford is currently forgoing the plug-in market in favor of more efficient hybrids and standard models.  The new Ford Fusion is among the most efficient, with an EPA rated 41 MPG city, 36 MPG highway.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Powershift is a bad brand name
By Lord 666 on 1/21/2009 10:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
"Powershift" sounds like a 70's muscle car style transmission... it couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth.

Try ecoshift or even DCS (Dry clutch system). But saying a focus has a powershifter is lame.




RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By FITCamaro on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By mrdelldude on 1/21/2009 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that a smaller engine would better benefit from more gears (4 vs 6). Also in a smaller car, the weight saving would be more pronounced, in mpg and performance.

Plus, I'd imagine that typical Euro city driving requires more shifting than typical US driving.

I want this in my next car. The only one that seems to be close to my budget would the GTI. It's good to see Ford make efforts like this and the eco-boost.

More choices are good!

Unless you're just jealous and you want the US to have it first, then I understand and agree with the "retarded" comment ;-)


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By FITCamaro on 1/21/2009 10:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about the name. It's retarded to have a feature called "Powershift" in a slow economy car. On something like the Mustang it would make sense.


By mrdelldude on 1/21/2009 11:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
Gotcha


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Lord 666 on 1/21/2009 10:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
The DSG in my TDI works great, no issues and well suited for the cars powerband. Ford is making prudent but important progress.

PS - 18 more posts until Dailytech retirement. I've been on this site quite some time. Have read some interesting things on here and even witnessed people maturing and growing based on their posts... one person comes to mind as an example is (the real) FITCamaro.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By FITCamaro on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Lord 666 on 1/21/2009 11:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
I gave you a compliment but not sure if you did or not


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
That was a compliment. He doesn't want you to go.


By FITCamaro on 1/21/2009 10:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I was complimenting him.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Samus on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 4
What magic fairy land to you live in? Getrag made the Supra 6 speed, one of the greats as far as transmissions go and don't require the supposed bearing replacements periodically.

As for the problems you state, what does a flywheel having problems have to do with the transmission? Is there a specific problem you can point out? You do realize these are completely separate, right?

Manuals are not meant to be beaten on as you put it, that is stupidity. And main bearings? There are no main bearings in a transmission, there are input and output shaft bearings and some internal support bearings. Also pilot/throwout bearing for the clutch and input shaft to ride on. I find it odd you don't mention replacing these as they should be replaced anytime you replace a clutch.

Let me guess, in your infinite wisdom you beat the crap out of your Focus, then were amazed when the stress damaged input shaft bearings? Don't fault Getrag for a design by Ford that wasn't beefy enough to have the crap beat out of it, as this wasn't the intention of a Focus. Hell, I wouldn't blame Ford.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2009 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What magic fairy land to you live in? Getrag made the Supra 6 speed, one of the greats as far as transmissions go and don't require the supposed bearing replacements periodically.


They also made the 6-speed for the last generation 3000GT VR4. A constant source of agony for it's owners.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They also made the 6-speed for the last generation 3000GT VR4. A constant source of agony for it's owners.


Most of the problems were driver error. It also goes to show you that poor engineering from the manufacturer of the car can make a tranny company look bad. Mitsubishi is the black sheep of Japan, their vehicles are mostly junk and always have been with very few exceptions.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2009 5:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
"driver error" when it comes to transmissions ??

That sounds like something Getrag would say to cover themselves, but please don't insult my intelligence.

Blaming Mitsubishi is also a lame duck. At the WORST you could argue they didn't specify a beefy enough tranny to handle the grip and power of the VR-4's AWD setup, but you would have to provide some kind of documentation to make that stick.

Getrag made a bad tranny, period. Does this mean Getrag is garbage across the board ? Nope. It happens /shrug.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 5:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but you would have to provide some kind of documentation to make that stick.
And you somehow don't?


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2009 5:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
On this issue ? Nope. The 3000 GT Getrag issue was documented and fact. He's challenging that it was somehow driver error or Mitsubishi, not Getrag, that was the problem. So the ball is in his court to prove his position.

Notice he didn't argue with me that there WERE issues with that transmission. Because he knows full well there WERE. We're only arguing about the cause.

Basically his argument is entirely conjecture because he's defending a brand that he respects and is loyal to. That's all well and good. But it's his problem not mine. I'm just stating a fact.

If I said the Earth was round would I have to Google you up a link to prove it ?


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 7:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I said the Earth was round would I have to Google you up a link to prove it ?
I was with you until you posted this. So, yes, post a link. DT'ers pull all kinds of things out their asses and state it as fact "because I said so". So, yeah, post a link. If you decide not to well that's your choice but don't expect me to put any credence in anything you say.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 5:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"driver error" when it comes to transmissions ??


OK, am I going to have to assume you know little to nothing about transmissions?

Major problems were shift forks breaking and syncros being ground. Both of these problems are caused by drivers who don't know what they are doing. Grinding syncros usually means you didn't release the clutch all the way or you didn't RPM match properly, both are driver error.

Breaking shift forks is pretty much exclusively from shifting WAY too hard needlessly. It isn't The Fast and the Furious, most people don't know how to properly drive a stick, that is just reality. Also the goobers who tend to drive this type of vehicle tend to be extra abusive cause they think they have something hot.

The final problem I have heard of was the input shaft rusting after water seeped in, this would be Mitsus problem for not sealing things properly and draining the water as such.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Reclaimer77 on 1/21/2009 5:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Breaking shift forks is pretty much exclusively from shifting WAY too hard needlessly. It isn't The Fast and the Furious, most people don't know how to properly drive a stick, that is just reality. Also the goobers who tend to drive this type of vehicle tend to be extra abusive cause they think they have something hot.


The VR-4's with the Getrag tranny were going for 40-50 thousand dollars. So I think we can dispense with the argument that these owners were " goobers " who didn't know how to drive or respect what they had. Not to mention the insurance rates on those cars were INSANE, and were probably mostly owned by more mature and older insurers.

Also I believe those models ONLY came with a 6 speed. No automatics. So people who couldn't drive a straight wouldn't even be LOOKING at the cars in the first place. Not for that kind of money. What are you smoking ?

quote:
Major problems were shift forks breaking and syncros being ground. Both of these problems are caused by drivers who don't know what they are doing. Grinding syncros usually means you didn't release the clutch all the way or you didn't RPM match properly, both are driver error.


So let me get this straight. All drivers of other tran's just happened to be better, and the Mitsu Getrag cars just happened to attract all the bad ones ?


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Manch on 1/21/2009 5:58:19 PM , Rating: 4
It was both Mitsubishi's and Getrags fault.

http://www.cars-directory.net/history/mitsubishi/3...

It is a common misconception that the 3000GT was equipped with a very weak transmission (which is technically a transaxle due to placement). Some even accuse it of being fabricated entirely of aluminum, which is quite ridiculous. This may stem from the fact that the external casing of the W5MG1 transmission was made of aluminum. The transmissions do have a tendency to fail, however this was not due to weakness or poor design. Rather this can be blamed on Mitsubishi's poor deal with Getrag, the transmission manufacturer. In the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to consider the transmissions "non-serviceable," and instruct all their dealers to simply replace the entire transmission if there was ever a problem. Indeed, the factory service manual has a single page devoted to the Getrag transmission, saying exactly this. This of course generated significant increase in sales for Getrag, at the expense of the loyal owners one might add. The major problem with the transmission was the synchronizers (notably 1-2 and 2-3), coupled with the fact that Mitsubishi specified the wrong viscosity fluid for the transmission. Some even speculate that this fluid is the major reason for said failures. As a result, many 3000GTs have developed grinding synchronizers that sound terrible and cause mis-shifts. In some cases, switching to a modern synthetic like "synchromesh" or a combination of Redline fluids, has been known to cure the problem entirely, or at least ameliorate it significantly. The fluids also go a long way to preventing new transmissions from developing this problem. Unfortunately, Mitsubishi technicians and dealers either do not know this or do not tell their customers this. Instead they [correctly] suspect bad synchronizers, and the only course of action is to replace the entire transmission. Getrag also refused to offer parts to any transmission mechanics who tried to fix the problem. As a result, many a VR4 owner has had to replace their transmission, and the car has developed a bad reputation for such, however it is unfair to accuse the transmission of being weak. Until recently there were absolutely no internal modifications for the transmissions, which clearly means that all the 700 and 800 horsepower VR4s out there run with perfectly stock transmissions. Though output shafts breaking is a common occurrence at that level of power (as it is for all AWD cars with that kind of power), internal failure is virtually unheard of.

Note: Getrag and Mitsubishi have lost a law suite and were subsequently forced to sell internal parts for the transmissions. Today, any competent transmission mechanic can fix a damaged synchronizer for $150 + labor. Gone are the days that a grinding syncro costs the owner $3500 for a whole new transmission. In addition, companies such as Kormex Trans Parts have begun offering superior internal components, specifically synchronizers that do not fail so readily.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a common misconception that the 3000GT was equipped with a very weak transmission (which is technically a transaxle due to placement)


It is hard for me to take an article seriously that doesn't understand what a transaxle is. A transaxle has NOTHING to do with where it is located. Transmission+axle=transaxle.

Also as you can see in the mention, it was a Mitsubishi problem. They have a notorious track record of being cheap, using cheap materials and just generally mis-engineering things. Remember that parts manufacturers make parts based on what the buyer wants and their price range, if they get cheap then they have to skimp.

You stating it was Getrags fault doesn't make it so, even the article you mention shows this was not the case.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Manch on 1/21/2009 11:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
The reason I said Getrag was at fault was not because of how the tranny was built but because of their shady business practices.

The article states that Mitsu and Getrag deemed the tranny unservicable so it "had" to be replaced as a whole item and Getrag refused to sell parts for them too.

They both got sued and lost on that account.

I agree with you about how they defined a transaxle, but I didnt want to cut the article and therefore skew my point so I copied it in it's entirety.


By callmeroy on 1/23/2009 8:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
Now, Gzus, don't get bent out of shape because I've seen how you go apeshit on folks here....this applies in general to ANYONE on these forums or anywhere...just an observation I've come to adopt....

Its hard for me to take anyone posting on forums very seriously these days....the power, breadth and easy searchability of the Internet makes it too easy to let ANYONE who is investing the time to search, come back to a post and look like an expert.

Its like this in heated debates online folks go...."you don't know crap about [x subject].....anyone knows...[blah blah]...."

Meanwhile that person leaves and spends 3 hours scouring the 'net for facts to support them and they come back and post it as that followed from their experienced soaked brain directly through their fingers and typed the information out.

There's a LOT of difference between knowing by reading, and knowing by DOING...and this is one reason that I think is a shame since the Internet.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 5:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The VR-4's with the Getrag tranny were going for 40-50 thousand dollars. So I think we can dispense with the argument that these owners were " goobers " who didn't know how to drive or respect what they had. Not to mention the insurance rates on those cars were INSANE, and were probably mostly owned by more mature and older insurers.


You haven't seen many Z06 owners have you? Many have no idea how to drive a stick, some do. The people with the most problems in those vehicles are usually the idiots.

quote:
So let me get this straight. All drivers of other tran's just happened to be better, and the Mitsu Getrag cars just happened to attract all the bad ones ?


Did you not realize this is a transaxle and are inherently weaker than your standard longitudinally mounted transmission? It is not made to be beaten on like that. While they put power behind it, you cannot beat the crap out of it like a normal transmission. Mitsubishi made the ingenious mistake of making a high powered vehicle with a transaxle.

This is a common problem with most of them. Go check out the morons with manual Civics and even with that joke of a power plant they destroy them. I had tons of friends that destroyed syncros in those all the time. Had a buddy with an Eclipse, he tore that pile of crap tranny to pieces.

Good rule of thumb is to not put a lot of power through a transaxle, or things like that happen.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/22/2009 2:25:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You haven't seen many Z06 owners have you? Many have no idea how to drive a stick, some do. The people with the most problems in those vehicles are usually the idiots.


Generalization and conjecture. More of the same from you on this issue.

quote:
Did you not realize this is a transaxle and are inherently weaker than your standard longitudinally mounted transmission? It is not made to be beaten on like that. While they put power behind it, you cannot beat the crap out of it like a normal transmission. Mitsubishi made the ingenious mistake of making a high powered vehicle with a transaxle.


That may be so, but Mitsubishi did not BUILD it.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 7:22:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The VR-4's with the Getrag tranny were going for 40-50 thousand dollars. So I think we can dispense with the argument that these owners were " goobers " who didn't know how to drive or respect what they had.
So just because someone has money that automatically means they know what they're doing? I guess by your definition, Bill Gates would be a genius.

quote:
So let me get this straight. All drivers of other tran's just happened to be better, and the Mitsu Getrag cars just happened to attract all the bad ones ?
Maybe Mitsu attracted the now wealthy, used to be driving a Lancer crowd.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By mmatis on 1/21/2009 8:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
That is so Mick of you!


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By jithvk on 1/21/2009 11:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the problems were driver error


It is like windows saying that you have performed an illegal operation. :)


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Noya on 1/22/2009 3:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only one that seems to be close to my budget would the GTI.


The DSG is really fun in the GTi. But, I wouldn't buy a VW that was out of warranty coverage, especially one with a DSG gearbox.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By RU482 on 1/21/2009 11:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
you're thinking PowerGlide, which, if I remember correctly, was only a 2-speed transmission. Yikes


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Lord 666 on 1/21/2009 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 1
Ford has their Powerstroke diesels and are industrial grade.

It would make commonsense to match the Powershift tranny to the Powerstroke motor and not to a fuel efficient car.


By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
PowerGlide was on GM products. A buddy of mine in HS had a '60 or '62 Olds Cutlas with the 2 speed PowerGlide.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By DM0407 on 1/21/2009 5:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're thinking PowerGlide, which, if I remember correctly, was only a 2-speed transmission. Yikes


Good times.... Dont get stuck at a light with a cop behind you. To get it in gear it would need to be reving at like 3500rpm, and would almost always roast some tire.

As for the name, its almost as bad as "eco-boost"... I'll keep my clutch, I have restless leg syndrome when I get in an auto


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By IcePickFreak on 1/21/2009 11:56:47 AM , Rating: 3
Seems like a straight-forward name to me. Shifting a manual without using the clutch pedal is commonly called power shifting.. so a transmission that is built to do just this seems appropriately named as Powershift.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 1:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except that you are not doing any actual shifting. Dual clutch trannies do not have your standard H shifters. Instead you change gears with steering wheel paddles, or a "tiptronic" type method.

The transmission still does all the work. In the "manual" mode, you simply give a command to shift instead of the computer using it's preprogrammed algorithm.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By IcePickFreak on 1/21/2009 9:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm not too up-to-date with Ford's doings so I read a bit more into it after my initial post. The plus is it's a direct drive dry clutch system (obviously) and not a viscous fluid torque converter. But anything beyond that I'd have to reserve judgement until I'd experience it in execution.
I suppose it is a bit of a stretch to tag it Powershift when it's actually using a clutch, but as long as it's a snappy shift I guess it works. If there's a delay in shifter paddle response to the actual shift (whether that is snappy itself or not at this point) it kinda tosses the whole point out the window as well.
On the other hand - while like I said I'm not familiar with Fords recent doings - I got the gist of what it's deal is justfrom the name. But then again if it doesn't feel like an actual power shift it's nothing more than marketing doing their thing to hook suckers like me to at least acknowledge it.


By IcePickFreak on 1/21/2009 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Aaaand, now I noticed I must of been reading about the yet to be announced dry clutch gearbox (mentioned toward the end of this article.) The Powershift is a wet clutch setup, but I guess my statement about holding judgement still stands just the same.


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By mmatis on 1/21/2009 8:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it would be more appropriate if they dropped the "f"?
}:-]


RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By S3anister on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By DM0407 on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Powershift is a bad brand name
By DM0407 on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
By S3anister on 1/29/2009 7:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to assume that you've never even seen or heard of the mark II focus or the numerous rally wins that ford has claimed because of the mark I and II focus.


By callmeroy on 1/23/2009 8:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what you mean, but I think we are taking the word "Power" in a different meaning that the manufacturer states it. Remember "power" has two basically meanings....there's the most raw and basic meaning of "power" which is just that -- power , as in a source of power. Then there's the dramatized meaning of "power" as in POWER...vast and great, and all that good stuff.

In other words meaning one: "My electric toothbrush uses a 9 volt battery as its source of power."

Meaning two: "The enormous power of the atomic bomb can kill millions".

So I think they just mean "powershift" as in literally shifting the power (as in smoothly, efficiently, etc).


I think Ford Gets it...
By StillPimpin on 1/21/2009 10:18:51 AM , Rating: 3
...more than Chrysler and GM. The only consumers who are clamoring for all electric and plug-in hybrids are those who have been brainwashed by Al Gore and his ilk who live and die by man made global warming/climate change.

Most drivers only care about one thing, fuel economy, and don't care how it's achieved. Ford seems to be on the right track of increasing fuel economy without sacrificing performance or utility. This is going to be the key to their future market success.

I'm looking forward to Ford having a very successful next five years or so with their only real competition coming from over seas.

Oh, and these comments come from a self proclaimed Ford lover.

Thank you.




RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By FITCamaro on 1/21/2009 10:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'll put it this way, if I had to buy a non-GM vehicle right now, it'd be a Ford. Not a Toyota or Honda.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By sliderule on 1/21/2009 10:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
For me, Ford is the only US manufacturer I look at. I've just been lucky I guess, but I've never had any problems with the Fords I've owned over the years.

I know they have problems too, friend of mine had a Taurus that was a real pos. It was always in the shop. Right now I'm looking at getting a new Ranger, I'd like to get a Toyota Tacoma, but I can get a 4x4 Ranger for what a 2 wheel drive Tacoma cost. :/


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Spivonious on 1/21/2009 10:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
I've been very happy with my 03 Focus. Unless something major happens, my next car will also be a Ford (most likely the Fusion hybrid).

Is this double-clutch system only going in automatics? I hope so, because the clutch in a manual gives the driver lots of control.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 11:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
My next car WILL have a dual clutch in it along with DI or HCCI (present car has DI).


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Lord 666 on 1/21/2009 11:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Can HCCI cars be true flex fuel vehicles being able to burn gas and/or diesel? that would be a great feature if it could.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 12:17:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can HCCI cars be true flex fuel vehicles being able to burn gas and/or diesel?
As far as I know, HCCI is strictly for gas engines as it incorporates some diesel functions. Mainly, the compression ignition function that diesels have.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By juuvan on 1/27/2009 9:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
At least the Mercedes version of the DiesOtto engine variates it's function. Operates in diesel cycle in lower revs and some modified otto cycle at higher levels, allowing good low rev torque and high rev power.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By 67STANG on 1/21/2009 11:54:25 AM , Rating: 3
I think Ford got a bad stigma attached to them in the 80's and 90's for reliability problems. The reality of the situation was that all of the "big 3" had reliability problems in the 80's and 90's. The difference was that Ford never had the huge number of die-hard enthusiasts that GM had (and Mopar was a bit on the obscure side).

The "big 3" are all making better cars these days, but I've always owned at least 1 or 2 Fords at all times (usually Mustangs or F150's) and have never had a single problem with any of them. The '07 Chrysler 300 that I have on the other hand, while I love it to death, is in the shop every other month for various ECU problems... Once the warranty is close to running out, I'll be trading it in on a new Mustang.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By steven975 on 1/21/2009 12:36:14 PM , Rating: 4
Ford also has a bad reputation due to the way they handled the Pinto situation. For those that don't know, they decided the cost of a recall was too great given the number of people that they estimated would probably die.

They also handled the Explorer situation badly. They succeeded in tarnishing Firestone, even though it was Ford who (without Firestone's knowledge) set the max tire pressure to a paltry 25psi as the Explorer was deadly due to rollovers at a more normal 35psi.

Oh, and now there's the situation with their cruise control modules that catch fire due to a faulty bladder that allows brake fluid to leak into the cruise control module, causing fires. Most of their truck line is affected, but they refuse to fix the problem.

Needless to say, IMO, Ford is a shameful company and they will never have my business.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By 67STANG on 1/21/2009 1:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
All automakers have had problems with recalls. The fact that you have to cite an economy car produced in the 70's doesn't bring much validity to your point.

After all, wasn't it GM broke the fatality record? With their side-saddle fuel tanks in their 1973-87 trucks, over 1,800 people have been killed in crashes from 1973 through 2000, due to fire and/or explosions. Read all about it here: http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-g...

Chrysler has their own problems with fires (due to blower motors)

The explorer situation everyone knows was not completely Ford's fault. You are referencing a split-blame scenario, as the tires indeed were defective. PSI had nothing to do with it as only the 15" tires were a problem and not the 16" tires...

The cruise control modules on the other hand (Made by Texas Instruments) are faulty and have been been voluntarily recalled 3 different times.... 2004, 2006 and 2007.

Again, another person shows exactly why Ford's reputation is tarnished-- unfairly.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Solandri on 1/21/2009 3:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone who lived through the 70s, the Pinto was a BIG deal. It was lampooned in cartoons, in comedy routines like SNL, and in movies as a car which blew up if you just tapped the back. The issues like the side-saddle fuel tanks in the GM trucks may have been more serious, but none of them reached anywhere near the level of bad publicity the Pinto (and Ford) got. The word Pinto became synonymous with defective.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By Spivonious on 1/21/2009 4:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't even know Ford made the Pinto. It shows how big of a deal it is to those of us born in the early 80s.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By DM0407 on 1/21/2009 6:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't even know Ford made the Pinto. It shows how big of a deal it is to those of us born in the early 80s.


I was born in '84 and I've heard the pinto jokes more times than I care to. To be honest I have no idea why they were so bad, I just know the jokes transcend the actual problem.

Lets call this one a draw, neither company cared about customers until the Japanese came to town.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By ExarKun333 on 1/21/2009 4:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
With the name "67Stang"...sound's like a "fair and balanced" opinion regarding Ford. :)

Each car manufacturor is reponsible for EVERYTHING that goes into their cars. Period. If they buy tires from Firestone and put them on their trucks, then they face the consequences if they fail. The same with the TI Cruise Modules. It may not be their FAULT, but they are responsible for it and take the hit if there are recalls because of it.


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By 67STANG on 1/21/2009 8:42:32 PM , Rating: 3
I thought I had been pretty fair and balanced... my screen name is because I have a "67 Stang" in my garage-- not because I only buy Fords. I've owned a Corvette and currently own a Chrysler 300 (not to mention a couple of Honda's, a BMW and even a Kia).

I never said that Ford wasn't responsible for putting Firestone tires on their explorers or TI Cruise modules in their cars. I was simply pointing out that Ford did indeed issue a recall on the TI modules and that they were not involved in PSI trickery with their tires...

My point, from all of these posts is that their is an unfair rep that it would seem only Ford is dragging around when all the big 3 are exactly the same.

The bottom line is, whether you like Ford or not, at least they aren't using your tax dollars to operate these days...


RE: I think Ford Gets it...
By FITCamaro on 1/21/2009 10:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
The Firestone tire fiasco was exactly that. A fiasco. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the tires. The problem was the stupidity of the owners. People drove the cars without keeping the tires properly inflated. Then they drove them over the rated speed of the tire. Then after a few accidents, the media blew the whole situation way out of proportion.

Firestone was nearly put out of business by the situation. All because of stupid people. The only thing Ford was responsible for was building a car that had a high center of gravity. But even there, people are stupid for driving it faster than they should with under inflated tires.


Correct?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/21/2009 10:50:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The weight reductions on the Focus's gearbox alone will account to a 9 percent increase in fuel economy, according to Ford.
A 30 lb. weight reduction will *not* result in a 9% increase in fuel economy. Perhaps that's the entire increase from the new gearbox design, rather than simply from weight savings?




RE: Correct?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 10:52:33 AM , Rating: 3
This depends. If some or most of that weight is rotational, the savings can be very real. This is most likely what is going on as that small of a weight reduction does almost nothing for economy on it's own.


RE: Correct?
By StillPimpin on 1/21/2009 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
Being that it's a transmission, I'd say that almost all of it is rotational. But I'm no engineer so... But I do know that loosing that torque converter acounts for about 10 pounds and that's 100% rotational.


RE: Correct?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 11:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being that it's a transmission, I'd say that almost all of it is rotational. But I'm no engineer so... But I do know that loosing that torque converter acounts for about 10 pounds and that's 100% rotational.


You would be very wrong. Case, Valve body and internals, fluid, servos, seals, etc. But yes, torque converter loss is nice, until you realize you have to have a flywheel which usually weighs more. I won't go into it, but torque converters are a bit less efficient at transferring power than clutches, so this could account as well, but not for all of the 9% they claim.


RE: Correct?
By bobsmith1492 on 1/21/2009 11:58:47 AM , Rating: 3
The torque converter causes a drop of a couple hundred RPMs from the engine to the transmission... so you're dissipating power directly. It's like putting a resistor in series with your lightbulb - it's just burning power. That's why when you're cruising on the freeway an automatic will lock-out the torque converter. You can see it happen - your RPMs will drop by 200-300. So, if you can go into lockout, you're not losing anything to the TC except for its extra mass. But, whenever you're NOT cruising or going up a hill in a lower gear you ARE losing energy.


RE: Correct?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 12:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Understood, but you are not in lockup most of the time. When it is in lockup, it no longer serves its intended purpose, it is merely a solid coupling much like a clutch.


RE: Correct?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 2:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
During crusing, torque converters are locked up. Some even lock up between shift points.

While true that when not locked up, there is slip and you lose efficiency you gain torque multiplication. Therefore you can afford to remove the equivalent of a manual's granny gear, reduce the need to shift as often, make for smoother operation, and haul larger loads.

Now some will argue that semi trucks have manual transmissions instead of automatics for hauling. Those are not large loads. The total vehicle weight may not exceed 40 tons. The OEM I was an engineer for in the early 2000s, used 6 speed automatics for trucks ranging in 40 to 105 ton payload capability. Beyond that a diesel electric powertrain was used, but other manuafactuers use mechanical drives.


RE: Correct?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 2:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
During crusing, torque converters are locked up. Some even lock up between shift points.


Depends on the make and the speed. The requirement is to at least be in a gear that is 1:1 ratio and cruising or you will burn up the converter. Lockup clutches in a converter can not take heavy load. Example would be those morons who leave their truck in OD while towing.

quote:
Therefore you can afford to remove the equivalent of a manual's granny gear, reduce the need to shift as often, make for smoother operation, and haul larger loads.


This might hold true if they didn't have 7 speed automatics. Shifting is not an issue on modern automatics as they shift very quickly and smoothly.

The efficiency of a fluid coupling is not very high compared to direct coupling, especially when you increase the torque multiplication. There is an inverse relationship, more torque multiplication means less efficiency and vice versa. The automatic transmission is known to sap around 5% more power than a manual for these reasons and of course the parasitic losses from fluid pumping.


RE: Correct?
By 67STANG on 1/21/2009 3:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. You also have to couple in the fact that many modern automatics are designed to slip their internal clutches during shifts to provide a smoother driving experience. This extremely apparent when driving luxury vehicles or vehicles targeted towards the elderly. (Oldsmobile's even used horrible nylon-coated timing chains to make the engine quieter, which sacrificied reliability-- but that's another topic).

Not only does this slipping cause clutch packs in automatic transmissions to wear faster (much like riding the clutch in a manual car), but also affects fuel economy to a small extent.

Most of the aftermarket "programmers" or shift kits that they have on the market that provide firmer shifts are simply taking out the slip command by telling the transmission that the engine is in WOT (wide open throttle).


RE: Correct?
By rudolphna on 1/21/2009 3:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have never driven an automatic that doesnt lock up at highway speeds. Still, they might be out there I guess, but they are probably few and far between.


RE: Correct?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have never driven an automatic that doesnt lock up at highway speeds. Still, they might be out there I guess, but they are probably few and far between.


And this has what to do with anything I have said because? Lockup converters have been around for almost 30 years in most vehicles now, I am only talking about lockup converters, not standard converters.


RE: Correct?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
At some point more ranges are diminishing returns and marketing gimicks with modern engines having wide power, err torque curves. 8 "speed" auto transmissions already exist in the Lexus flagship. Is it really any better than having a 6 speed? From what I've read, most of the time the first range is not used.

The reason you do not see more than 6 speed manuals is because the shifting pattern becomes less than user friendly. Take for example Eaton-Fuller 8 speeds in 18 wheelers. You have 1-4 then you need to flip a lever and go 1-4 again to get 5-8.

With manumatics (automatically shifted with a clutch) you can have more than a 6 speed without much sacrifice in user friendliness. However as I mentioned earlier, do you really need it? Does it actually improve performance and or economy, or it is just a "we have more speeds than brand Z" approach?

Personally, I'll keep the 3rd pedal and shift myself. It's a better driving experience for me and I won't burn up the clutch in bumper to bumber traffic like some of those manumatics try to do. But if I must choose between a DSG and a hydraulic auto, I'll take the DSG for the solid coupling. It makes for a much better feel of connectivity to the road.


RE: Correct?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Lockup clutches in a converter can not take heavy load."

That depends on the torque converter. Like I said, we hauled 105 tons of payload locked up.

The shift sequence was 1, 1L, 2, 2L, etc. up to 6L. I tested plenty of these and no torque converter was ever a weak link locked up or not.


or they could have made everyone happy
By tastyratz on 1/21/2009 10:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why this has been so complicated all this time.
A manual transmission can be converted to run as if it was an automatic fairly easy, and I'm sure much more cost free vs an auto. Any car company could easily make a manual transmission car capable of automatic operation. Retrofit dual operation conversion kits already exist in the aftermarket similar to what I describe.

A clutch is a hydraulically controlled item. Knowing exact and correct pressures means you can have a hydraulic assist paralell to a clutch pedal (allowing you to operate in "manual mode"
This device could apply hydraulic pressures based on ecu feedback and known figures.

When it comes to shifting the standard H pattern could be ditched and a sequential up/down type could be implemented with electrical motor assists. Companies produce sequential shifter adaptors for H pattern cars which just replace the shifting assembly. I am sure they could produce something similar.

The ecu could self calibrate itself for clutch wear by watching engine response in relation to hydraulic pressure readings (Example, at xpsi the engine RPM drops signaling engagement)

The only issue would be starts from a stop in automatic mode, but I am sure they could emulate an automatic in that respect with some thought. Perhaps only start clutch engagement when the brake is released and gas has been pressed, with aggressiveness based on the accelerator pedal depression rate.

The complexity of this system sounds expensive, but I am sure it could be implemented for less than a regular automatic transmission which is far more complex.

The downside I can see is clutch wear from traffic and multiple stop/starts... but with perfect rev matched shifting after getting up to speed that could cut down on clutch wear in that respect (as well as synchro, etc)

That could also be negated by using this on a hybrid vehicle that uses the electric motor for initial starts from a stop.




RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By Spivonious on 1/21/2009 10:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to point out that not all clutches are hydraulic. Mine is mechanical, and I like it that way. Gives you a better feel for the road.


RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 11:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
Until you encounter a real heavy clutch on performance vehicles, then you would beg for a hydraulic clutch. I had a LS7 clutch in my 2002 Trans Am and I was quite glad it was hydraulic, ha.


By tastyratz on 1/21/2009 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
Most older clutches are cable, almost all modern manual transmission vehicles have hydraulic clutches. While they can still make cable clutches on low end cars now, a hydraulic system is cheap enough.

Ive used the cable clutch in an old lotus, 5 minutes and my foot was literally black and blue on the bottom the next day. It makes a better feel arguably but it usually comes with a pedal far stiffer than most consumers would accept.

Also theoretically for arguments sake this could even be used with a cable clutch just substitute hydraulic pressure with an electric motor and tensiometer.


By Cobra Commander on 1/22/2009 6:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously dude?

You lost me (us) at Trans Am.

What was the last American car that had a famous manual in it?


By Cobra Commander on 1/22/2009 6:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Amen. Most DRIVERS know what you're talking about.


RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By SilentSin on 1/21/2009 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The downside I can see is clutch wear from traffic and multiple stop/starts...


That's the first thing that came to my mind too. Especially if they use the even/odd method. Wouldn't the plate assigned to the task of first gear get significantly more wear than the other? Guess it doesn't really matter if it's easily replaced and lasts as long as any other plate though.


RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume that by removing the human element from misusing the clutch, greater life should be expected from these types of trannys. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.


RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 12:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
You would be correct, driver error is a huge reason clutches wear out prematurely. Also a major contributor to engine main bearing and transmission damage.


RE: or they could have made everyone happy
By rudolphna on 1/21/2009 3:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
So true. Alot of people dont seem to realize that you are supposed to control your speed with the THROTTLE.... not the CLUTCH....


By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
And others like to use it as a hill hold instead of the brake.

Additionally there are people who keep their foot over the clutch pedal between shift points - a very bad habit, since much of the time their foot is no longer in the air, but pushing the pedal.

And yet another bad habit is to keep your car in gear with the clutch in at a red light. After 30 seconds or so their pedal is no longer to the floor, but a couple inches away.

...and the list could go on.

On the plus side, in an emergency you can push start a car with a manual (dead battery), but not so with an automatic. And, you can actually leave it in first or reverse with the engine off, and it will hold on a hill since it is designed to transfer torque unlike park in an automatic.

Now if you are going to bypass setting the parking brake and just leave it in gear, make sure it really is in gear. I remember back to HS when a friend of mine found his truck in the middle of a 2 lane highway intersection the next morning. I never saw anyone run through 2 feet of snow that quickly.


By juuvan on 1/27/2009 10:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
robotic gearboxes have been around for awhile already. At least PSA and Ford have one available in Europe. Dual clutch system have one distinctive benefit compared to the robotic one.

When you shift you are already on gear. You only adapt your revs between the lift and lay of the clutch.

enables you to shift very quickly, but involves speculation from the ECU whether we are changing down or up. Sometimes it does get it wrong and you will notice.


Whaattt?
By icanhascpu on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whaattt?
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 4:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clutchless shifting? What the fuck is the point of that? Just get an automatic!
Lightweight, compact packaging and fast, efficient shifts. Read above. People have already stated the benefits over standard automatics.


RE: Whaattt?
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 4:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
That's called "the purpose". That's not called "the point".

So whats the point? Who is going to use this? Pro sports? Huge crutch that takes away from the skill of the driver.

It seems like the only people that would use this, are people that cant drive a real manual and need a handicap. But going that far, why even have a stick? Just have a button on your steeringwheel for upshift downshift.


RE: Whaattt?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 4:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Are you mentally handicapped? OEMs will use it cause it shares the efficiency of a manual with the ease of an automatic. They don't build this crap for racers.

As for motor sports, it is quite possible you will see it in drag racing, will most likely be outlawed in most other forms of racing due to the advantage.


RE: Whaattt?
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 5:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They don't build this crap for racers.
Actually they do. F1 and FIA Rally for starters. I'm almost positive it's used in other applications.


RE: Whaattt?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually they do. F1 and FIA Rally for starters. I'm almost positive it's used in other applications.


The OEMs don't, that was the implication of my statement.


RE: Whaattt?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
"As for motor sports, it is quite possible you will see it in drag racing."

Drag racers, top fuel drgsters that is, do not use a transmission. They just slip a clutch for most of the run. That is why they have a "9th exhaust pipe."


RE: Whaattt?
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 5:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's called "the purpose". That's not called "the point".
What's the point if there's no purpose?


RE: Whaattt?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
"In other new, my old VW bug didnt need me to push the clutch in. heh, wasn't exactly GOOD for the transmission, but it was possible to shift up. Shifting down was out of the question clutchless."

It is neither good nor bad or the transmission to shift without using the clutch if you match the engine RPM appropriately and do not have a load applied. A clutch is really only necessary to get moving.

If you ever take notice, while shifting you most likely do not have the clutch pedal pushed in beyond the friction point when you move the shift lever out of gear during upshifts. However you probably eased off the throttle enough that the popping out of gear is effortless.

When coasting, it is not necessary to push in the clutch to get out of gear. Similarily, I used to have the timing down perfectly turning into one specific driveway in a previous car where I could shift from neutral into second gear without the clutch. The engine was at idle, and the car was at just the right speed. No grinding, no effort, no damage.


I like my CVT
By Jeff7181 on 1/21/2009 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
I still think CVT's are the way to go for automatic or semi-automatic transmissions. If they could find a way to do away with the torque converter they'd be even better. Maybe just use a dry centrifugal clutch to disengage the transmission from the engine at low speed. They could even build some computer controls into it to apply the clutch differently depending on throttle position.

They should also do away with using fluid pressure to change the ratios between the pulleys like my Nissan does. Just use a stepper motor or something.




RE: I like my CVT
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 3:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe just use a dry centrifugal clutch to disengage the transmission from the engine at low speed.
Then how does the power from the engine get applied to the wheels if the transmission is disengaged?


RE: I like my CVT
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 4:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
OK, what? Some CVTs use a torque converter and they are less efficient. They could easily do the clutch thing, but it is silly to point out as it has been thought of before. Computer controls? Whoa, are you a rocket scientist? There isn't an automatic transmission on the road that doesn't have some computer control, you aren't posing something new.

Fluid has to be pumped anyway for lubrication and cooling, why not use it to control the pulleys? Stepper motors will not be as strong and run the risk of failure.

Also the major hurdle for CVTs being in more vehicles is they are not nearly as strong as a standard transmission. Put one in a full size truck towing and it will be wiped out.


RE: I like my CVT
By Atheist Icon on 1/21/2009 8:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There isn't an automatic transmission on the road that doesn't have some computer control, you aren't posing something new.


*raises hand*

Not trying to bust your balls dude...but one of my 89 Supercharged TBirds was not equipped with a computer controlled automatic(AOD). Now my 93 Supercharged TBird on the other hand, it does(AODE).


RE: I like my CVT
By Jimbo1234 on 1/21/2009 11:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just goes to show how behind the times Ford was (and still is in many aspects).

My 1985 Renault Encore had a computer controlled transmission. Yes, I admit it, I had one of those. I got it for $45. Sure it only ran on 3 cylinders, but c'mon, $45! Okay, I had to put in a few quarts of oil every few weeks too. But it was used oil with sawdust that worked just as well as shiny new oil so it was free.

I think he meant that there isn't an automatic transmission made within the last 10 years the is not equipped with some computer control.


RE: I like my CVT
By Atheist Icon on 1/22/2009 3:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Considering that an SC Tbird at the time costed 24K-28K, I highly doubt anyone would really pay more just to have a computer controlling a transmission. I have yet to have any problems with my AOD, but with the AODE I'm having to have it rebuilt with only 48K miles on it. Just because it computer controlled doesn't mean its better.

BTW, I hate autos, but in this case, its the only way my wife will let me keep my cars.


RE: I like my CVT
By 9nails on 1/21/2009 10:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
I like CVT's too. I've seen demo's that showed CVT's out accelerated like-class-cars from other manufactures and also showed significant fuel economy savings in such vehicles.

I'd agree that CVT's are not the cure-all for the transmission duties. They have specific's and good matching vehicles. But not all vehicles are trucks towing 5 tons and have enough torque to spin the World backwards. Nissan's Maxima has impressive numbers (290 hp @ 6,400 rpm, 261 lb-ft of torque @ 4,400 rpm) and is mated with with a CVT. Certainly vehicles up to this point should at least consider this technology. To cast use of CVT's out in a blanket statement would be negligent in engineering.


Does this work like a semi transmission?
By elite53 on 1/21/2009 12:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
The transmissions in semis have a problem with the clutch being wiped out when the clutch brake is activated while driving. Do these dual clutch systems have the same problem?




RE: Does this work like a semi transmission?
By Jeff7181 on 1/21/2009 1:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
What's a clutch brake?


By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 2:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think he is confusing it with a Jake Brake or engine brake. Completely different, so a very strange confusion, but there you go.


RE: Does this work like a semi transmission?
By Steele on 1/21/2009 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
A clutch brake is used on power equipment (IE, loaders) and is literally a clutch and brake in one. The operator can brake the wheels while keeping the machine in gear and the engine speed high without driving against the brakes.

This is essential in a loader, where you need a higher engine speed to work the hydraulics when loaded.


RE: Does this work like a semi transmission?
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 4:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Um, this is the job of a PTO, not a "clutch brake". The only thing I can even find on a "clutch brake" is in non-synchronous transmissions that need a way to slow down the idler gear.


By AssBall on 1/21/2009 5:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
These clutch brakes are used on mostly equipment with out gears from what I've experienced. It is just a way to keep engine RPM up using the throttle without engaging the main drive.


Seriously...
By abitofgo on 1/21/2009 10:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
How is a twin clutch (dry or not) clutchless shifting!?




RE: Seriously...
By odiHnaD on 1/21/2009 10:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
It should read "Clutch Pedal-less" shifting, but we don't say "clutch pedal" we just say clutch.

I see where you're coming from though.


RE: Seriously...
By 9nails on 1/21/2009 10:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
I remember an old VW Beetle with a "clutchless" transmission. I can't recall the specifics, (if it was pneumatic or hydraulic, perhaps mechanical even) but it indeed used a clutch; however the clutch would engage when the stick was moved out of a gear select position. For the most part it worked.


RE: Seriously...
By Jellodyne on 1/21/2009 2:48:36 PM , Rating: 4
If you install one clutch in the engine's numerator and bolt the other one onto the divisor bracket, you can eliminate them from the equation.


Nice catch :D
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/21/2009 12:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
Clutchless shifting for the user, but the car has two clutches, so it's not a clutchless transmission.

Just another cloning of VW's DSG, soon to come alfa romeo dcct, and so on.

This things are pretty cool IMO, but I still like CVTs better (if it were not for the serious torque limitations they have).




RE: Nice catch :D
By Souka on 1/21/2009 1:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see a CVT vs one of these double-clutch(clutchless) designs.

The cars are economy, so CVT should be fine...

If I recall, the Nissan Altima CVT did a bit better in MPG ratings over the manual 5sp...

I even drove a rental Altima CVT, wierd. It felt like the tranny was slipping all the time.


RE: Nice catch :D
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Nice catch :D
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/26/2009 7:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
CVTs not only bring better economy to the table, they are also able to enable better accelerations, as the time between shifts almost loses meaning and the engine can operate at peak power for longer due to the "continuous ratios".

It's cool tech, not new at all (has several decades going on), but cool at least. The operation is different though, and for someone used to normal auto or manual cars, the weirdness factor can be overwhelming at first :D


Do what trains do...
By Jeff7181 on 1/21/2009 1:20:21 PM , Rating: 3
I still don't see the point in having a gasoline or diesel engine ever drive the wheels in a hybrid. Take a page from a train engineers book and put something like a 1.0 liter turbo diesel engine in a car and use it strictly as a generator. It would run at only one RPM so it could be made more efficient than a typical engine that has to operate over a range of at least a couple thousand RPM.




RE: Do what trains do...
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 3:18:58 PM , Rating: 3
By Pneumothorax on 1/21/2009 7:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
BUILD a Euro Focus HERE in the US not in MEXICO with a turbodiesel/DSG tranny and you have a sale. I drive 200 highway miles a day so hybrids don't help much and VW's reliability is PATHETIC (makes Ford look damn good lol)




By Atheist Icon on 1/21/2009 8:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not everyone wants to pay more for diesel. I sure as hell won't.

All I can say is that atleast Ford is heading in the right direction.


By Magnus Dredd on 1/26/2009 4:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not everyone wants to pay more for diesel. I sure as hell won't.


For the slow:

Jetta (Gas): 21/30 MPG city/highway
Jetta (TDI): 30/41 MPG city/highway
TDI MPG is higher by: 43%/37% city/highway

Flying J (6700 W Latham St & S 67th, Phoenix,az) @ Sun Jan 25th, 5:45 PM
Gas Price: $1.85
Diesel Price: $2.18

Fuel Used Gas (1000miles): 47.6/33.3 gallons city/highway
Fuel Used Diesel (1000miles): 33.3/24.4 gallons city/highway

Price to drive 100 miles gas: $88.06/$61.61 city/highway
Price to drive 100 miles diesel: $72.59/$53.19 city/highway

Diesels are cheaper to drive.

It is stupid to focus on is the fact that diesel costs more per gallon due to the fact that you can drive MUCH FARTHER on every gallon.

Since diesel cars are generally go ~40% father per gallon, if diesel fuel is less than 40% more, it's cheaper.

Diesels are also MUCH easier to use with alternative fuels, which can drive down costs MUCH farther. Biodiesel can be made for less than $1.00 per gallon if you can get the oil from a restaurant.


Dear god....
By afkrotch on 1/21/2009 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they really doesn't start trying to replace standard clutches with this crap on all cars. Say goodbye to the drifting scene on newer cars then.




RE: Dear god....
By Spuke on 1/21/2009 12:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why would the drifting scene be affected by dual clutch trannys?


paradox
By Screwballl on 1/22/2009 12:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both units will offer full automatic control or clutchless manual shifting.


a manual without a clutch is not a manual, the proper term is "auto-stick" and it has been available on various models such as some GM mid level cars since early this century (I think 2001).... granted it is not a clutch-less transmission but it is the same action required inside the car, it is an auto-stick.




RE: paradox
By Cobra Commander on 1/22/2009 6:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
Read up and learn the differences of what we're talking about here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostick


Possible Inaccuracy?
By Cobra Commander on 1/22/2009 6:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
"Each clutch is assigned half the gears with the odd gears being assigned to one clutch and the evens to the other."

...quite possibly that's the TYPICAL situation but if you investigate BMW's new DC in the M3 I'm fairly certain you'll find it has logic which allows for greater complexity than this.




RE: Possible Inaccuracy?
By Cobra Commander on 1/22/2009 6:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind, my bad. Both are possible - odds/evens-only but the capability for a 5th>3rd shift... just wouldn't be as fast. Sorry.


ummm i thought this was already out?
By otispunkmeyer on 1/23/2009 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
we got a presentation on it ages ago (and in that presentation it appeared ford stole alot of tech demo videos from VW lol)

im pretty sure you can buy it now in the top of the range Focus (UK), but only on the 2.0 liter diesel engine in the titanium model




By otispunkmeyer on 1/23/2009 1:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
and, i dont think porsche have ever had a production car with a Dual clutch gearbox until recently. their DPK system has been around since the 80's but only used in prototypes and racing cars.


Getrag=Awesome
By Gzus666 on 1/21/2009 10:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
At least Ford figured out Getrag transmissions are amazing.




Efficient shifting
By Jansen (blog) on 1/21/2009 12:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't realize that when you see numbers for how quickly a manual can shift, that's with a professional driver. Regular drivers would have a tough time meeting those numbers.

Dual-clutch allows you to have control when you want it, but it also allows you to shift much faster mechanically than even the fastest person could.

The BMW M3 uses a Getrag DSG, the 2009 997 Carrera and Carrera S will use it , and it comes standard on the Bugatti Veyron 16.4.

Plus you can use paddle-shifts.




well
By jay401 on 1/21/2009 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
The title would make much more sense if you said "pedal-less shifting" instead of "clutchless shifting". It has clutches, it just doesn't have a pedal you need to depress in order to shift between gears.




Powershift...
By Amiga500 on 1/22/2009 4:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Coming to you on John Deeres, Case Internationals, Massey Fergusons and Fords since 1980something...

(I know its not quite the same thing, but this is an old idea that someone has forgotten!)

:-D




???
By DatabaseMX on 1/26/2009 4:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh ... my 2004 Hyundai Santa Fe - as well as my 2005 and 2007 Hyundai Tuscon had/have 'shiftless' transmissions ... a beautiful thing indeed. What am I missing?

***




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki