Ford, GM Partners on 10-speed Transmission

ZF 8-spd

It looks like Ford and GM have decided to put their engineering heads together to combat the strong push Chrysler is making with its newly introduced ZF eight-speed trasnmission called the TorqueFlite 8. 

The New York Times is reporting that Ford and GM have entered into a memorandum of understanding — legalese for, "Hey, why don't you and I talk about this?" — to look at an appropriate nine-speed for passenger cars and a heavier-duty 10-speed transmission for larger vehicles, like half-tons and full-size SUVs. 

Given the seeming popularity of Chrylser's new ZF transmission and the 2025 fuel-economy targets, it makes sense that everyone who is making big, heavy vehicles would head in this direction. We're also hearing there may also be ways for transmissions to take advantage of duel-set axle gears that can shift from axle ratio to axle ratio like a 10-speed bike. 

As with any memorandum of understanding, the results are likely to be quite a ways off, but at least they're beginning to think about what to do next. More to come. 

 

Comments

Maybe the title shoulda said "Ford and Chevy can't get current 6 speed right in 1/2 tons, so they will build 10 speeds!" Looks like the 8 speed got them wound up!

@ZRPOO; Drivability from a 4 speed? Where? Not in these hills! I had a 2006 Silverado, almost 400 pounts lighter then my Ram, had smaller 265/70 17 darn near low rolling restance tires that weighed only 39 or 40 pounds, even had the 310 HP aluminum block (I guess most trucks didn't have that? they had the 295 hp?) 3.42 gears. Anyway, it sucked, it had to get in second gear empty to make a hill at highway speed.

Debender:

The zf 8 speed eats the Allison. No contest. The higher end models are stronger, shift quicker, and are more fuel efficient.

@Hemi Lol: those 18 wheelers need up to 15 and 18 gears to get it moving! Although 2000 ft pounds of torque and more are available, the typical rig might be closer to 1200-1600 ft pounds torque. (help me out, current drivers)

Just say 1500 for comparison? Now, using a 5.0 Ford engine with 380 ft pounds torque, the big rig has 4 times the torque, but the Gross Combined Weight Rating of that F-150 but at say 75 thousand (a typical weight)it has 5 times as much gross combined weight. Of course 80K is supposed to be the limit, or so they say. Until you get loaded somewhere where there are no scales. No thanks, I had enough. But give me an Eaton Fuller 15 speed and get on down the road!

But where would you draw the line for 1/2 tons? 10? 12? 15? Too many for me, if 6 does well in your Tundra, I will take the 8 that will have a better starting ratio capabilty and better highway ratio capabilty.

But whatever, just give us back manual transmissions in 1/2 tons! I would rather have a 7 speed manual that has less stuff controlling when to shift, and will outlast the autos, and be less expensive!

We don't need any more gears. I cannot stand the gear hunting on my wife's 07' Acadia. Six is enough. 8 , 10, 12, who really gives a crap. One thing I do believe you'll see is one time use transmissions. No one wants to repair stuff anymore. Bet they will be super expensive just like the trucks that use them.

TRX4 TOM your an ABSOLUTE HYPOCRITE. STOP CRYING !!!!!! JACKASS !!!!!!

@Cory, I have yet to see you say anything sensable! Just post your YOU TUBE video of a Ford drag racing and be on your way!

But knowing you have a 5.0 I can see the reason you might want a 10 speed. It has a very peaky torque band, instead of a broader one! That and the 6.2, and the 3.7. Ecoboost makes a broad powerband, sorta like 5.4s, only more.

Hey Cory, if Ecobooost is so great, why didn't you buy one? you bought a 2011 and now a 2012 right?

To comply with CAFE a lot of your vehicles will have to weigh much less than they currently do by 2016.

Making heavier drivetrain components isn't the answer.

I do see some relavance for people towing, but how many people actually use your pickups for towing. Fuel economy gains will be marignal as is shown by the 8 speed Ram.

The idea of the eco boost was to reduce weight. But if you read what Ford states, its basically in comparison to a V8 not a V6.

And as I stated if you can't design gas engines to be much more economical then I can see the end of large pickups coming.

To all you guys using the number of gears as a tool for a comparison is ridiculous. It shows they are running out of ideas.

And how much will your pickups cost in 3-5 years.

Steve | Oct 4, 2012 10:35:19 AM

What is the current configuration where the zf8 is found? I've owned many trucks of different brands over the past 50 years I've been driving and never had the opportunity to try a zf8.

What I do know is that people who tow or haul, and those who can, will choose an Allison over anything that's out there, if they have some serious business.

These same people have owned Ford and Dodge transmissions and that's why they switched. Transmission failure is the most common roadside breakdown of the powertrain for RVers and haulers, with everything else that can break down a distant second.

In every RV magazine I subscribe to, no mention is made of the zf8, but the Allison remains the most highly recommended. As a matter of fact, people who have their RV built often specify a drive train that has the Allison at its core.

North America is opposite to Europe when it comes to transmissions. In NA it is 20% manual / 80% auto. Europe is opposite at 80% manual. Even luxury cars come with manual gear boxes. I like manuals but compacts don't provide me what I want and I don't need a diesel Cummins.

@Lou,
The European mindset was at the back of the design of the Amarok. They released it with no Automatic believing Tradesmen only drive manuals like Tradesmen do in Europe. Wrong there. They have now compounded the problem by releasing the new Amarok with a 8 speed Automatic, but not much in the way of very low gearing.

@Robert Ryan
I have read that the 6 speed Ranger/BT50 drivetrain does work better than the Amarok.

I have also read that VW dumped the transfer case because it thought its gearing was low enough in 1st for off roading.

The cost of the 8 speed doesn't make it attractive compared to a 6 speed with a transfer case.

Maybe since a lot more 2wd pickups are sold in the US compared to our 4x4 utes it might not make a big difference.

But like us most of their pickups aren't tow vehicles or used for any form of work.


Wrangler refresh pushed until 2017, GLADIATOR IN 5 YEARS 8-speed and facelift coming for 20

Started by Marauder_Pilot , Sep 15 2012 at 07:06 pm

This just popped up, courtesy of a final1, an employee at TNAP on JeepForum.com

Quote


We have been asking for rubber floor coverings and different seat materal for years. Also, They let us know today that the new face lift fro teh Wrangler has been pushed back to 2017!! It will get some touches for 2014 and a 8 speed auto. the new MOAD edition looks great and we will start the 10yr. Annv. for Rubicon next month. New gray paint and army green called Camo started 2 weeks ago. Look hot! Floyd Pink coming later this year.

So, on the downside, it sounds like the Gladiator will be coming 'in 5 years' once again. On the upside, the JK will remain mostly as-is for at least 5 years, with the exception of the 8-speed (Yay.)

Also sounds like three new colours this year, and potentially some more rugged interior options for 2014, and some other little changes. Good stuff.

http://www.allpar.com/forums/topic/145843-wrangler-refresh-pushed-until-2017-8-speed-and-facelift-coming-for-20/

GM & Ford Partnered on the current 6 speed tranny.
It is programmed for fuel mileage and is slow to kick down relatively unresponsive. 10 spd could be even worse. THe 4sp was more drivable.

TRX4 Tom ONLY thing I get out of your DUMB POSTS is the WHINNING and CRYING need a TISSUE ? 3rd rate JUNK !!!!!!

@ rr7mc - my 6 speed kicks down fine. You gotta be kidding to think that the 4 speed was more driveable. The reason why the 4 speed felt more responsive is due to the larger gaps between shifts.

Give me enough gears so I max out at 10 mph in first gear, and can cruise at 80 mph at 1000 rpm. Best of all worlds. Remember when you had to choose between a towing axle ratio and a one geared for fuel efficiency?

I can just imagine the cost of getting one of these rebuilt.Very costly I would guess.

These new epa rules are going to ruin the automotive world !
Cars/Trucks smaller,more expensive.We wont save anything on gas,as the price of a gallon will sky rocket (because cars will get better mpg so they will raise the price to $40 a gallon)

We better vote Obama out as Romney said he will get rid of Obama's epa gas mileage ,he understands the cost will sky rocket and destroy everything ! I am not political,but only in the last few years I pay attention to what politician/party is good for the car/truck fan..The Dems have gone crazy and dont want anybody to drive as proven by these stupid regulations,shame on you if you vote for this clown again...Obviously you dont like driving a 5500 lb 400 hp truck !Nor do you like driving at all,as they want us to take transit and walk ,so much for freedom,forcing people to be poor by this green lie.By the way we have record sea ice ,something these green b.ser's dont tell us.

@ Cory: Nope, I don't need any tissue, sounds like you do though. You don't like my post, scroll on down! I know, it sucks to have to think what's going on in your truck car, why this or that does this, so just keep believing what you do and buying up tuners.

@TRX4 Tom since you are a wise old man what you think about fiat takeing out the hemi v8 and putting in a hemi 3cyl? I know what you are thinking wow but listen this 3banger will have 190 hp and tow anything you can come on this site and tell everyone you towed the moon out of orbit Mmmmmmmmm make up storys all you like ! And dont worry the Ram is comeing out with a 14 speed tranny very soon can you feel it reach for the rainbow trx4 tom reach

@roytruckfan - you should praise EPA rules. They are responsible for saving big trucks ass's and killing small trucks.

@The Ram Fans
Here's what I think. The Pentastar was designed to drop a turbo on, similar to a Eco Boost Ford engine.

What are they going to do with the Hemi labelled V8s.

Which V8 are they going to drop.

I've heard none of you guys debating which Hemi is the best to get rid off.

@ Roy Truck fan,Mopar,GM,Ford,Toyota and Nissan we must stop this e.p.a crap !!

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/


Here is the link.

It's Funny how 1st and 2nd rank in sales are teaming up to compete with third place rank in sales.LOL

It is funny how the third place guy would think that.

Make no mistake Ram is the Class leader in innovation and best in class period.

@ Big Al: How is it the 8 speed has not helped mileage much? By itself, if I put one in my 2010 Ram with 3.92s, there would be no change in flatland highway mileage, as my current trans and the 8 speed both have a top gear of .67. But I would bet the trailer towing mileage as well as slower speed mileage would improve due to the trans keeping it in a better rpm range, and not needing as high of an rpm to make the same hill. Like for example, 3.92 geared truck goes straight to the 1 to one gear (third in Drive, and 4th in tow haul) Now with the 8 speed, if it went to 7th gear (.84) it would not need the 1 to 1 gear cause now it has a 3.29 seventh, less rpm. In my case, when it gets to the 1 to 1 gear, it is more then enough power and I can let up just a bit and get it to go into 4th gear (in drive, a 2.94 ratio. Except one or two hills.

Even if you ran the 8 speed with 2.94 gears it would have better pulling power in the first 6 gears then I do with 3.92s and all gears. One gear for non towing in the hills, 2.47 final (lower then my current 2.64 top gear) and 1.97 for 8th gear for 70 mph+ down interstate.

Part of the average right now for Rams mileage includes 3.92 geared trucks. But for the last few years people with 3.21 have gotten great highway mileage, they would be even better if they actually sold more trucks with 265/70 17s vs the heavy 33" 20' wheel and tire combo. So if they had just wanted to get the higher number, they coulda just made the trucks with 3.21 ratios with an 8 speed, which will still do good with the higher ratios.

I can't see any reason why they wouldn't use a 2.94 gear in a 4x2 Hemi truck. If Chevy can use a 3.08 with their lower torque and a spaced out 6 speed, why not Ram with an 8 speed? There was some talk of them making lighter axles. But you know somebody somewhere will put 20" wheels on it and lift it and tow too much, and in drive, then when they break it cause they aren't using tow haul or locking out 7th and 8th, then they will scream how bad it is. (out of ignorance)

And of course those that bolt on the big tires for four wheeling will want the 3.92s. So they could change the number if they want to.

You ask me they should take bore out of the 5.7 and replace it with stroke, and continue to try to lower the rpm of max torque, yet offer the 6.4 Hemi in limited numbers for R/T trucks, and 2500s as an option.

I think the 3.6 v-6 might grow into a 4.8 v-8 v-8. Atleast some of the parts would work in both engines, like pistons, rods, timming chains. Injectors same amout per cylinder.

Cory is gonna love this! Too much thinking going on! I should just show a video, that explains it all! Or a link to a tuner that I don't need!

@TRX4 Tom
Under a significant load I do agree additional gears will reduce fuel economy, but not by as much as you would think. Like I have stated some do use pickups as work/tow vehicles but most I have seen don't have a scratch and the hardest work they do is bring the shopping home. So, gearing isn't a significant issue.

Overall the gains from an 8 speed in compaison to a 6 speed is not different from the gains between a 3 speed to a 4 speed. Especially if your final ratio is the same.

Also too tall a gearing can cause excessive fuel consumption, just using the lowest possible rpms might not be using the engine most efficiently.

You can talk ratios all you want, but its the engine's characteristics that determines gearing, ie, cam grinds, valve sizes, port sizes, exhaust, compression ration etc.

Also the amount of gears will need to increase expotentially to have significant gains in the future. What is coming after a ten speed, 14 speed then 20 speed.

On the statement about the 3.6 growing into a 4.8, you might get more power, but is it the most efficient you can get a 4.8? This is how engine design is heading.

Engines are now being designed to only be certain sizes. Take the Pentastar, Fiat dropped the 4.0 litre version and went a 3.0 litre version instead. The range of engine sizes available in a series of engines will reduce. Also for the Ram fans aren't the Pentastars coming out with 420 and 470hp turbo versions. I think your beloved Hemis might become passe.

As I have stated, your full size pickup manufacturers are running out of ideas, with gasoline technology. The next thing and easiest option is to make the vehicles aerodynamic, I would have thought that would have made more sense than more gears.

Remember TRX4 Tom this isn't racing where you want to be in top gear, pulling max rpm on a quater mile run or be in top gear pulling max rpm at the end of the main straight.

Maybe I should let you read some of my engineering books, as I had to learn in "school":)

But the best way to reduce fuel consumption is to educate on how to drive, or tax fuel more.

Big Al from Oz-I am not an engineer, but I have a brother who is a retired engineer with an advanced Aeronautical Engineering degree from George Tech. Aerodynamics is a critical factor in fuel economy because reducing the drag factor from the wind will contribute significantly to fuel efficiency along with reduction in weight. A brick shape is going to require more energy in motion that a rounded shape. This is not what F-150 guys want to hear because the F-150 is rectangular shaped with squared off edges which appear more masculine than the rounded and lower profile global Colorado and Ranger which these guys see as feminine. You could put 20 plus gears in a automatic transmission and not reach a noticeable degree of efficiency. After a while you reach the law of diminishing returns. Weight reduction, small engines, more aerodynamics, lower roll resistance tires, along with more efficient drivetrain all together will get you closer to the new fuel standards but as you said there is only so much you can do with the internal combustion engine. Many want increase efficiency with little change which is kind of like eating a large chocolate cake and losing weight. Not going to happen. To meet these new fuel standards is going to require more drastic change.

You people act as though you know more about these things than the engineers. You don't.

@Big Al: Who said anything about being in top gear and turning max rpm? ?? Where do you get that stuff? I mean that's nice for drag racing and I guess it will do wonders for the speed contests here, which alot sem to say makes there choice on what to buy.

There is a right rpm for everything. I know a lower rpm is not always the answer, as you might have read my whole post? Where I stated that maybe with a 2.94 rear end when used with an 8 speed would be a 2.47 gear ratio which I know would work decent around my hilly area with no load on the truck (no trailer) at say 70 and lower, yet the 8th gear could be great for driving 75 down a flat interstate.

You totally missed it that the lower gears on the 8 speed are numerically alot higher and can be like using a 4.30 gears to get the truck moving, and and yet have a 2 to one final for interstate cruising, which might work great in a 4x2 truck, but at some point the weight and the hole the truck must make in the air will work against it to lower will not help it anymore.

"You can talk ratios all you want, but its the engine's characteristics that determines gearing, ie, cam grinds, valve sizes, port sizes, exhaust, compression ration etc"

NO KIDDING, but isn't this mostly a talk about gears? And you said the 8 speed hardly did much for mileage? Lets see, if I can tow better with the lower gears and have a 20% drop in rpm when I am going 75 mph on long trip (as I drove my truck 1300 miles totally empty to pick up race car stuff. And came back the 1300 with a bed full of parts, and then loaded up more parts and hooked up the trailer and loaded the car. Then I drove 800 more miles to get home) So, that won't make a signifacant mileage chage?

Sure, there is more to it, I never said there wasn't. Like the fact Ram made the trucks best aero. And it lowers down at speed. They can be lightened some, but how much you gonna spend on aluminum and what have you to make a huge differance?

I have said they could stand to shorten the front up, less overhang. I am sure you would just like them to stop making bigger trucks, but as I said in the past, your little trucks will not work (for me) So it would be nice if we had more midsize trucks to choose from, and we can't make people buy them. Maybe if they made midsizers that are more appealing, like haul near as much (without just sticking big numbers on them like Ford does) or make them actually have torque.

I have asked you what the differance in price is between diesel and gas over there and never got an answer. Or the amount of pollutents you get from a diesel. Still wanting. I am sure that is another answer your "engineering book" taught you, just make it diesel.

Not sure turbo charging a v-6 is the answer to all. If you think 420 or 470 hp turbos are the answer, well that is asking alot of 3.0 or even a 3.6. I myself prefer torque but the way we commonly refer to engines is by horsepower. The jury is still out on the Ecoboost. Ford can talk all the smack they want about engine number ##### being tested. And of course they will cover up anything that fails. As much money as they spent. We already had Sandman 4x4 on here say his head gasket was bad. Didn't make it 15 K did it? Or people on F 150 forums being told their ecoboost doesn't like humidity, and Ford says block off some of the intercooler? REALLY? That's with only 365 hp, I can imagine the issues of 420 hp from a smaller engine.

It's also funny you say "we" here in the states are running out of ideas. You got all those ideas in that engineering book, right Don't they have a copy of those books? LOL.

The biggest thing is that alot of folks don't need big trucks, but I am not going to try to make them not buy them. While you drive your diesel stinking truck, I just get in my little car when I don't need to haul and I spend way less per mile then you, while you drive yours up to 115, or cruise at 85 as you say. Sounds like you aint so worried.

@JeffS - Aerodynamics come into play more as one approaches highway speeds. Americans like power partially because they like to travel at 85mph down the highway. One could attain higher speeds with less power through aerodynamic improvements. Trucks have gotten lower, bumpers and chin spoilers also have gotten lower. Aerodynamics and crash safety have played a huge roll in this change. I had read somewhere that Ford gained 0.5 (1/2) a mpg by adding an inch to the chin spoiler.
Top Gear had a few interesting stories on the Bugati Veyron. That car is very aerodynamic. It takes around 200 hp for it to travel at 100 mph. It takes 800 more hp for it to go another 100 mph faster. At its top speed it would burn through its fuel supply in 12 minutes which is good considering its tires would only last 15 minutes.
Around town and lower speed short distance driving is a different animal. I believe that is where we will see greater gains with an 8 - 10 speed transmission. The engine will run at a more efficient RPM. Accellerating a large mass consumes a large amount of fuel. If you have a vehicle with a fuel consumption gauge all you have to do is reset it right before you take off from a traffic light. Your mpg will suck until you hit the posted speed then the mpg will drop and level off. Mass also causes problems with mpg. The heavier an object, the more energy you need to accelerate it.
Smaller more fuel efficient engines, multiple gears, lighter weight will give you better mpg at city speeds.
Funny thing is, most people do not want to adjust their driving habits. I gain 12 - 15% improvements in mpg by driving smoothly and thinking ahead. I found that it was incredibly hard to do at first.
People would rather blame OPECers, politicians, big oil, and big car companies than look in the mirror.

@Lou-You are correct about driving habits. I have become a much better driver by anticipating stops and coasting into stops and accelerating more gradually. Not only is it better for fuel economy but it is easier on you vehicle as well meaning parts last longer and the vehicle itself last longer. Easy does it as they say when driving. You can take any vehicle, any brand and by driving it gently and maintaining it properly it will last. I have done this with Fords, Chevys, Hondas, Mitsubishis, and Chryslers. I once got 25mpg out of my mother's 64 Impala wagon by driving it between 50 and 55mph during the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Normally the gas mileage was below 20mpgs on the 64 Impala which was understandable because of the weight and the 327 V-8 with a 4 barrell Rodchester carb but if you don't accelerate rapidly and maintain a steady speed then you are using 2 barrells instead of 4. My brother the Georgia Tech engineer has told me in detail about aerodynamics and the effects of wind drag. These are all factors in vehicle design and will be more of a factor in the future. Great conversation Lou, thanks.

@TRX4 Tom
The only way you guys are going to achieve significant gains in fuel economy is a complete redesign of your trucks.

You guys who want to use your trucks for work and not as a toy car replacement have to realise this.

The simplest way to get 25-40% improvement is to put an engine in that is better suited for work ie, diesel.

You guys have to become a bit more realistic on what to expect from your pickups.

The characteristic of an engine, especially power/torque curves determines from what ratios you will run.

Just addinng gears isn't the answer, I agree you will save some fuel, but the advantages aren't nowheres near the same as changing the characteristics of and engine and its aerodynamics. You talk alot about gearing in a large quantity of your posts, but gearing can only go so far. What if you can design a more flexible engine?

If you want your trucks to remain the same, then some huge bucks will be spent on R&D and more exotic materials will be needed. Your trucks will become less available to the average person due to costs.

As I told DenverMike these costs will outstrip the cost of a diesel conversion.

But, if you guys want gas only then pay the price for the required technology to bring this about, that's how dumb your regulations are.

The additional cost of an 8 speed Ram isn't much different than running a 3.0 litre V6 diesel 6 speed that will tow as good as a 5.7V8 Hemi and use less fuel than the Pentastar.

Your gas EPA figures appear very optimistic as well, I'm not saying they can't be achieved, take the Jeep Grand with the 5.7 Hemi in Australia its rated at 14.8 litres per 100km, thats a combined cycle of urban/open road driving. That is only 15mpg! I wonder how much a Ram with a 5.7 Hemi in Australia would get 14mpg, maybe.

The same Grand with the V6 diesel is returning 27mpg using the same testing.

You can talk about the pros and cons of number of gear ratios all you want, but there are better and cheaper alternatives of achieving better economy out of a vehicle.

I read an interesting article on the Pentastar, and yes a single turbo version will be 420hp and a twin turbo version will be 470hp. Have a look at how the heads are designed for the Pentastar. And they will be using Fiat Air something or other technology, I forgot the technical term.

@Big Al from Oz - Fiat calls it "multi-air". It appears to be a form of variable valve technology. I didn't spend much time trying to absorb the technical aspects of the system.

@TRX4 Tom
Here is an interesting article from the WSJ.

The Ram Pentastar V6, 8spd is achieving 2mpg than the Ford.

How much of this is attributed to the better drag co-efficient of the Ram or the 8spd gearbox? I do know just adding driving lights to a vehicle use about 1+mpg of extra fuel.

So maybe Ford's engine/drivetrain overall is more efficient than the Ram's.

If you look at this from the perspective I detailed above, Ram should be able to achieve better results, considering their advertised benefits of the Ram design.

But I do know the Pentastar in Australia is nothing significant as a new engine design at the moment, it still might evolve.

Number of gears will assist, but not as much as better engineering.

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2012/08/25/is-fuel-economy-the-new-horsepower-for-pickup-trucks/

@Al: Could it be because you are guessing how a Hemi would do vs. me having one and knowing? Have you even driven one?

I never said gears alone would do it! Doh! But in my case as somebody who bought the highest geared (3.92) non RT 1500 Ram, the 8 speed and 3.21 will do wonders. And if I could I would get the smallest 17 inch tires offered by Ram, 265/70 R 17, but the tread pattern is not my choice and the dealers push the big wheels, (which you think are great for mileage-but only in four wheeling they are, when needed to get over obstacles, open higway they take more power to turn.)

Diesel makes all sorts of torque. Again, it costs more here. It will cost more as demand is up, right? Again, how clean does it run?

Again, when you get 420 hp from 3 liters there is alot going on in a non diesel engine. Alot more cost, maint, and replacement parts cost more. I like the idea of low speed torque. I have a turbo Daytona and had a Neon SRT-4, great power with little effort and low speeds. Now add a whole lot more weight to the engine load.

Maybe we need small wheels, like those 16" ones and what 255/70 17s like those little trucks in Aussie have. Maybe we should put on really smally 11.88 rotors, less weight. Works for Mazda even tho their GVWR is about 7K. Or 10 something inch rear rotors.

You pretty well said the 8 speed barely did anything for a Ram driver. It wont do any better highway mileage if the same gear ratios are used, but I can buy a 3.21 geared Ram with 8 speed and have within 3% of Fords 3.73 starting ratio, which is a whole lot better then the current Ram ratio, yet have alot more pulling gear in second gear, and have a much better final drive, and still do everything a 3.92 geared truck does, and better. Yes, bring on the multi air, bring on direct injection, and as I stated before a longer stroke. Less bore can handle more comression. Better exhaust systems can be made. The Tundra needs headers to make less power then the Rams (restictive looking) manifolds. The only thing the Tundra really has is a bit more torque in the 2000 rpm range, with all those valves and technoligy.

Maybe YOU EXPECT MORE out of our big trucks.

@TRX4 Tom
I'm looking a few years down the track and so is Fiat. I would think the current Pentastars are being ironed out before they drop the turbos on them.

Hemi's, yes they might make one, but have a read of as much Fiat information as you can (by Fiat Italy). You will be surprised at how Sergio views the future of Chrysler. At the moment he doesn't want to tamper with Rams to much. Fiat operation and future projections are very fluid at the moment, so expect the unexpected. The NA market is Fiat's bread winner at the moment.

I do think the Pentastar will become their major large engine.

As for you having a Hemi, doesn't worry me. I know the SRT8 Grand goes pretty good. But is a tad heavy on fuel for my liking. But the diesel Grand is the pick of the bunch.

As for wheel sizes?? I didn't get your reference on wheels. I do know I do have 14" light duty truck tyres on my trailer and I think they are rated to over 1200kg each.

The F-250 Super Duty we were using had 17" wheels on it and it seemed to perform quite well with the existing gearing.

But gearing and ratios, is worked out mathematically using a lot of variables.

The reason for the extra gears isn't for anything other than trying to improve fuel economy. I've driven many 5spd trucks and they perform quite well. If it come down to increasing the amount of gear ratios it doesn't appear to good for gasoline engine developement.

I have taken a fair amount of flack from some on this site on how uncompetitive our mid sizers are, well the more "tinkering" they have to do on your pickups the more attractive ours become (if no trade barriers are in place).

I still do think there are better and easier (cheaper) ways of improving fuel economy.

But remember most who use a 1/2 ton pickup use them as a sports car, not like you for towing.

Many refer to Dodge Ram as the TEDDY ROOSEVELT
The rough rider
Shake rattle slow

Hey folks,
It isn't about pulling or torque or horse power today. It is about mileage and reducing emissions. The way you do that is by maintaining a constant engine temp and rpm. Unlike the rpm and temp changes that occur with large spread gearing, the new systems are basically the same bottom and top end gears and diffs with more gears inbetween to maintain constant rpm and engine temps. This is what the engineers and mfgs are doing to try to meet the emissions standards set forth but the administration for 2015 and 2025 and the Kyoto Accords.

Your Toyota most likly share some parts made by GM. They all share parts. I worked with a company that makes fuel injectors,we made them for toyota's Ford Chrysler GM Cummins,out of the same steel and off of the same machine. Stupid, They all share

why would everyone want to condem the joint venture between gm and ford,i see all these manual trans dodge guys complaining but that manual trans in thier dodge was a joint venture with gm since the 1980s opps. they have all shared technology for some time now the more gears the better.

Look....im 17 and i was lookin for specs but yall guys sound like a bunch of lil kids either way it goes its gonna happen whether its better or not....just gonna have to wait to find out when it gets here.... I have worked on em all and i have to say i could careless about any but a ford to me and this is my opinion no matter who its made buy now days you hit an air particle the wrong way the fender rips off... They just aint built like they were use to to me they are almost as disposables as plastic forks or diapers better yet paper plates or a coke can.... But again as i said this is for questions and chat not actin like children so plz .... If you may leave the childishness for the kids

And my gmaw just bought a brand new car and it tore up.... Just like my 97s10..... As far as being better transmissions are getting weaker not stronger nor more reliable....i mean yea better gas bit hey pawer glide i wasnt call i a wrecker i just let it shift up and kept on cruisin......as far as emissions and sht .... Idc personally and why fix something that isnt broke i really wish america would take that motto because there is only so much change can happen until all progression collapses they keep it up we gonna be by candle light and shtin in pots

don't hate get with the times

A few years back Chevy / Ford partnered on a 7 speed transmission, never saw that produced. Maybe it was only overseas.

Just use a bicycle as a analogy, ur legs are the motor and gears are transmission and axle ratio...it is way easier and takes less energy on your legs to shift through the gears of a 21 speed versus a 10 speed...I'd take a 10 over a 6 anyday...heck a 6 speed 5.3 Chevy gets better mileage than my 4.8 4 speed... There's also cylinder deactivation, but that a whole different can of worms..

Gearing is the low hanging fruit for improving fuel economy. The right gearing can make a smaller motor work in a larger truck or car. You can have a really low gear to get out of the hole and a tall gear for hwy cruising. Every one will be getting on the bandwagon to meet government regs. Even the Toacoma will have to do this but they are usally a couple years behind the curve. The Taocoma is a follower not a leader. Most of the time what Ford and Chevy do the rest follow...have to give Chrysler credit for leading for once.



The comments to this entry are closed.