2018 GT MT-82 Destroys itself.

[Jimmy G]

.....If there are 20-24 claims per build month (made up numbers), that’s 2.5-3.0 incidents per thousand vehicles... not a good figure in industry. Not terrible, but not good. And 500 claims? That’s 62 incidents per thousand vehicles a TERRIBLE number....

Three claims per thousand is bloody exceptional. That's point three of one percent of Mustangs with a dodgy gearbox.

Although I didn't make it perfectly clear, I was talking about 500 dead Mustangs per annum (approx 85,000 Mustangs made in a year). That's a failure rate of point six of one percent.....also terrific.

In both cases, we're talking one in every 100 Mustangs in the workshop for an extended stay. That's 99% with no major dramas. Statistically....near perfect.

Sponsored

 

[Mountain376]

Three claims per thousand is bloody exceptional. That's point three of one percent of Mustangs with a dodgy gearbox.

Although I didn't make it perfectly clear, I was talking about 500 dead Mustangs per annum (approx 85,000 Mustangs made in a year). That's a failure rate of point six of one percent.....also terrific.

In both cases, we're talking one in every 100 Mustangs in the workshop for an extended stay. That's 99% with no major dramas. Statistically....near perfect.

Not in industry in respect to quality, no.

Nevertheless, the only ones that have the real numbers is Ford and Getrag.

 

[Mountain376]

OP appears to shift hard. In the previous dash cam video, the video shudders during the shift, indicating a shock to the car. Now whether that can bend or break a shift fork I have no idea. Either way, that can't be good for the dog teeth on the gears.

Think about the role of a shift fork and synchronizer assembly.

If the clutch is disengaged (clutch pedal pushed to the floor - which it must be on the Mustang), the transmission has the right fluid and level and the synchronizer is designed right, there should be relative low force in relation to the shift fork fingers; especially if there are shift stops internal to the transmission the keeps the shift fork from over extending (which will cause an increased load onto the shift fork fingers).

If you look at the broken shift fork pictures, it is clear as day that the failure point is at the shift fork finger. If you look at the physical pattern of the failure area, you will see that the fork failed due to something outside of pure mechanical shearing. Likely porosity or crack propegation... something arising from a local "stress riser". The part looks to me like it began to separate/crack on the inside edge of the shift fork, then gave away after about half-way through the part; where, in that point, it then sheared/bent off.

 

[mustang1]

Think about the role of a shift fork and synchronizer assembly.

If the clutch is disengaged (clutch pedal pushed to the floor - which it must be on the Mustang), the transmission has the right fluid and level and the synchronizer is designed right, there should be relative low force in relation to the shift fork fingers; especially if there are shift stops internal to the transmission the keeps the shift fork from over extending (which will cause an increased load onto the shift fork fingers).

...

low force, if the cone clutch has enough time to synchronize the two gears. Otherwise, the shift fork is attempting to jam the synchro through the blocking ring and dog teeth on the gear.

 

[Jimmy G]

So are you getting an all new transmission with steel shift forks or is there a way to replace just the forks? Also are you getting the revised clutch on your fix?

He put out another video.



Short story....the parts ordered were wrong, the right parts are on back order, and his car will likely be off the road for months.

 

[BmacIL]

Updated Picture of 3/4 Shift fork.

Tech says it cracked over time, and eventually snapped off.

Those parts were not cast well, and also need more generous radii where the fork arms meet up with the shaft. Sharp corners get poor material flow, which leads to porosity, in addition to being a stress riser. There's a serious QC issue here. As stated, it's not the problem that they're aluminum, it's that they didn't properly design & manufacture them to be aluminum.

 

[HISSMAN]

Ford would have sent specs to Getrag for production.

 

[Mountain376]

low force, if the cone clutch has enough time to synchronize the two gears. Otherwise, the shift fork is attempting to jam the synchro through the blocking ring and dog teeth on the gear.

Yup, exactly. But, if the synchro is designed correctly, with good trans fluid having the right coefficient of friction and viscosity and the proper fluid level, what you are stating should be a none-issue. All said and done = not the customers fault; it is the fault of the company, dually Ford and Getrag.

Are these Ford designed bits or just Getrag?

Likely Getrag designed with Ford guidance/support and acceptance.

 

[mustang1]

Yup, exactly. But, if the synchro is designed correctly, with good trans fluid having the right coefficient of friction and viscosity and the proper fluid level, what you are stating should be a none-issue. All said and done = not the customers fault; it is the fault of the company, dually Ford and Getrag.

Likely Getrag designed with Ford guidance/support and acceptance.

OP wants to shift in such a way that there is no time for the synchronizer to work. Trying to rush the shift is going to be hard on synchronizer parts, including shift forks. Maybe billet shift forks would be better but there would still be other parts to break or wear, such as dog teeth on the gears.

 

[BmacIL]

OP wants to shift in such a way that there is no time for the synchronizer to work. Trying to rush the shift is going to be hard on synchronizer parts, including shift forks. Maybe billet shift forks would be better but there would still be other parts to break or wear, such as dog teeth on the gears.

I dunno. I've seen a lot of the 15-17 MT82s beat on pretty hard without croaking, including my own.

 

[HISSMAN]

I beat the hell out of my 2016 MT82. No issues at all with it.

 

[Jimmy G]

Those parts were not cast well, and also need more generous radii where the fork arms meet up with the shaft. Sharp corners get poor material flow, which leads to porosity, in addition to being a stress riser. There's a serious QC issue here. As stated, it's not the problem that they're aluminum, it's that they didn't properly design & manufacture them to be aluminum.

You can't blame stress rising on the fact that the OP broke the ear off the 1-2 shift fork. Both of these fractures were caused by flat-shifting, that's pretty clear.

The argument is whether Ford/Getrag should have engineered the gearbox to allow for owners that would beat the sh1t out of it. When you sell a car with a Xmas tree countdown on the dash, and a line lock function, you can reasonably expect some buyers will thrash the hell out of of their cars.

That said, three quarters of new car buyers are over 48 years of age (average Mustang GT buyer is 44), and they'll mainly see the car as an aspirational purchase. Non many Fast and Furious fans in that age bracket.

Fords recent decision to cut back on the passenger car models they make points to the fact that they're good at math, maybe they have looked at the figures and consider losing the odd gearbox or two the cost of doing business in the performance car market.

 

[BmacIL]

You can't blame stress rising on the fact that the OP broke the ear off the 1-2 shift fork. Both of these fractures were caused by flat-shifting, that's pretty clear.

The argument is whether Ford/Getrag should have engineered the gearbox to allow for owners that would beat the sh1t out of it. When you sell a car with a Xmas tree countdown on the dash, and a line lock function, you can reasonably expect some buyers will thrash the hell out of of their cars.

That said, three quarters of new car buyers are over 48 years of age (average Mustang GT buyer is 44), and they'll mainly see the car as an aspirational purchase. Non many Fast and Furious fans in that age bracket.

Fords recent decision to cut back on the passenger car models they make points to the fact that they're good at math, maybe they have looked at the figures and consider losing the odd gearbox or two the cost of doing business in the performance car market.

Except that's not how good product design works. If they broke that easily, they had an astoundingly low design margin or it's a manufacturing defect. You have to be really be careful with aluminum because it doesn't have a stress below which it will never fail from cyclic fatigue. Steel does (half of the yield stress). This had very low cycle count (so not really a fatigue failure) and the shift fork ought not to be the weak link under high load conditions if done correctly. Very poor design. The 15-17 MT82 is not nearly so fragile.

 

[Mountain376]

You can't blame stress rising on the fact that the OP broke the ear off the 1-2 shift fork. Both of these fractures were caused by flat-shifting, that's pretty clear.

The argument is whether Ford/Getrag should have engineered the gearbox to allow for owners that would beat the sh1t out of it. When you sell a car with a Xmas tree countdown on the dash, and a line lock function, you can reasonably expect some buyers will thrash the hell out of of their cars.

That said, three quarters of new car buyers are over 48 years of age (average Mustang GT buyer is 44), and they'll mainly see the car as an aspirational purchase. Non many Fast and Furious fans in that age bracket.

Fords recent decision to cut back on the passenger car models they make points to the fact that they're good at math, maybe they have looked at the figures and consider losing the odd gearbox or two the cost of doing business in the performance car market.

That still doesn’t hold up. What’s you’re reasoning when you consider Ford Motor Co., itself, is putting in no-lift shift for the 2019’s. Let me guess, you think they planned to upgrade the MT-82D4 over the 2018’s for that? You’d be dead wrong. They might do something now, after customers are breaking their shit.

In addition, consider that other companies have no-lift shift on their cars or that people with aftermarket no-lift shift on their cars don’t seem to have an issue.

Why are you trying to defend 1. A transmission that has a proven track record of poor quality control and cost-cut design and 2. Ford that has a track record of under-engineering and/or selecting the lesser durable manual transmission option?

Let’s take a Look:
T5
T45
TR3650 (an OK transmission; at least it has a decent fluid capacity and splash lubrication for cooling - the MT82 gets HOT!)

 

[Jimmy G]

......What’s you’re reasoning when you consider Ford Motor Co., itself, is putting in no-lift shift for the 2019’s. Let me guess, you think they planned to upgrade the MT-82D4 over the 2018’s for that? You’d be dead wrong. They might do something now, after customers are breaking their shit.

In addition, consider that other companies have no-lift shift on their cars or that people with aftermarket no-lift shift on their cars don’t seem to have an issue.....

There is nothing in the 2019 Mustang Owners manual to suggest that it has a no-lift shift feature.

If indeed the 2019 does come with a no-lift shift feature, don't you think that it would help increase transmission life for those that flat-shift??!!

Maybe Ford are introducing it to fix this broken shift fork problem .

Sponsored