Did Ford Ruin their Manual Trans? - Engineering Explained

[Zooks527]

If I had to guess, the ratio in second is set so that there's only a single shift in a 0 - 60 run, which is the first thing every magazine seems to print. The others fell out from that. Granted, as it is, coming up a ramp in 3rd give you only a single "zoom" to well above the limit. Not much chance to exercise the shifter.

Sponsored

 

[nastang87xx]

Agreed. Not sure what mph targets I'd look for in each gear, though. Haven't run any numbers for that one.



Your proposed speed ranges for the first five gears are actually pretty close to what I'm looking for, for my '08, where 5th is really the 'whatever' gear and 6th is 'HA!'.

You must be looking at really short tires and a really deep axle ratio, 'cuz I've worked out the numbers below using 25.9" tall tires and 3.73's in the axle at only 6000 rpm using an available transmission.
47
70
96
125
156


For a road course car, what you generally want is for the gear spacing to get closer as you go up through the gears, for at least a couple of reasons. Aero resistance gets bigger, so the faster you go, the more you want to be able to stay closer to peak power. Plus, and greatly simplified, it keeps the mph ranges more comparable - 1.5 to 1 gear spacing is good for 70 vs 47, but starting at 100 mph, a 1.5 jump to the next gear puts you at 150.

You've got a lot more power and rpms available than I have, so I haven't put much time into seeing what I might choose if I had 7500 rpm and 450-ish HP available. But for road course use I think a Tremec with 2.97/1.78/1.30/1.00/0.80/.063 ratios has better gear spacing than anything that Ford has offered. Closest I can readily find in the Magnum XL series uses a 2.66 1st gear (all the rest are the same), which is a bit too tall for easy launching from a stop on an upslope.


Norm

Yeah those types of speeds per gear I thought up are very much GT350-centric with a 325/30-19. When I had my 2011 GT I had 3.73's and the ratios were awesome for the road courses, at least around me. 285/35-19 tire. But I was doing almost exclusively autocross at the time and I think the rear gear to have for that application were the 3.55's. I would run out of 2nd gear in a hurry.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I was quite anxious when I started watching the video, expecting to find out how Ford ruined the gearbox, as per its title. I thought I'd come to regret not having ordered my Mustang with the A10. But, surprise! I've found out that, as far as I'm concerned, they've actually made it better!
I love long gear ratios. They may not be optimal on the track, but boy are they soooo nice for day to day driving...

 

[cib24]

We have the 3.55 standard on manual cars in the UK. I bought a Ford Racing Torsen and 4.09 gear set and can't wait to get them installed in my car when winter is over. It should make the car so much more fun for driving in the UK given our roads are so curvy and dynamic. The stock ratios mean you never leave 2nd gear and that's just not interactive enough.

 

[shogun32]

Closest I can readily find in the Magnum XL series uses a 2.66 1st gear (all the rest are the same), which is a bit too tall for easy launching from a stop on an upslope.

eh? there's 2 flavors of that trans. The second one is
2.97 2.10 1.46 1.00 .80 .63

 

[boB]

my '19 never sees 6th and rarely 5th. i'd enjoy the earlier ratios more on the street. however, at barber, redlining 3rd on the front straight and not needing 4th is pretty sweet

Interesting how different driving styles can be, on my '19 I use 5th at 50 mph when just cruising and 6th almost all the time on the interstate. When I take it to a Daytona track day my gear selection may change. ;)

 

[Norm Peterson]

eh? there's 2 flavors of that trans. The second one is
2.97 2.10 1.46 1.00 .80 .63

You can get some mixing and matching of ratios between the 2.97 2.10 1.46 1.00 .80 .63 version and the 2.66 1.78 1.30 1.00 0.74 0.50. Dederich and others will swap the .80/.63 overdrive gears into the 2.66 low box. I think one of the non-Magnum TR6060's was actually regular-production with 2.97 1.78 1.30 1.00 .80 .63


Norm

 

[Fly2High]

I posted his elsewhere but it belongs here

When I look at that video, I heard Ford marketing screaming in it. I am not doubting EE results. I am speaking from the standpoint of Ford selling cars and feel it was done deliberately. Since we were talking auto vs manual differences, I decided to look them up. I went to the web site https://www.zeroto60times.com/ to see what the differences of various Mustangs were. I have no way to validate the numbers or know where they got them from. I am looking at them as a common source only.

0-60 times according to https://www.zeroto60times.com/

Mustang:

Ecoboot :
2018 Manual 5.1
2019 Ecoboot PP 5.1

GT:
2015 Auto 4.5
2015 Manual 4.4
2018 Auto PP1 3.8
2019 Manual PP1 4.4
2019 Manual PP2 4.2
2019 Bullitt Manual 4.4

Shelby:
2019 GT350 Manual 4.0
2020 GT500 Auto 3.3

Looking at this, they made the Auto faster from 2018+ but kept the Manual the same. To me, that screams influence. They want to sell automatics, especially the new A10. What I find interesting is when you look at the marginal improvements.

2019 GT Manual PP1 4.4
2019 GT Manual PP2 4.2
2019 GT350 Man 4.0
2019 GT50 3.3

2018 GT Auto PP1 3.8

OK, the GT500 is a bigger jump but what if they kept the Tremec? Is it possible the difference between the GT and GT350 would have been tighter? If you see, the PP2 has smaller diameter wheels with more grip and suspension improvements made up 0.2 seconds on the time with the same engine and Getrag tranny. The 2018 GT Auto appears to be faster than the GT350!! Tell me that they are not trying to sell the automatic and doing whatever necessary to do so. The fact that the EE video states that the auto puts more torque to the tires than the manual indicates to me that even with the 3.73 rear, torque was intentionally left on the table for no improvement in gas efficiency or performance. This too screams marketing decision. They could have asked Getrag for the same gearing as the Tremec if they wanted to. I would love to see EE use the Tremec gearing on a PP2 car and see what the numbers do.

Why would you make the manual faster than the A10 auto that you just spent a ton of money making with a Chevy collaboration?

I think it also explains why the PP2 doesn't come in A10. Assuming the PP2 package can improve 0-60 times for the auto as well, then it would push it to about 3.6, assuming the same level of improvement. That kills the GT350 and puts it in striking distance of the GT500 for a whole lot less money.

For either manual or A10 auto, it is just a single gear shift to get to 60. To me, it is all about the gears they selected and how they wanted the cars to line up. I think they are doing whatever they can to reduce manual sales in order to get rid of the option to further save money.

Now, if we were talking about the BMW M2 Comp. C & D was able to get the manual 0-60 at 3.9 while the DCT could do 4.0.

I am glad to see they offer gearing and final drives that can help. I wonder what a 4.09 on a PP2 turns our to really be since the tires are a smaller diameter

 

[Fly2High]

Once he sold off what I believe is his last manual, the amazing s2000 I lost all respect for him

But I am still a fan of the show

 

[Silver Bullitt]

I really think he hit the nail on the head when he said it may be better for the overall everyday driving experience. 5th in the MT82-D4 is a great highway gear without the total overdrive feeling of 6th (in both the MT82 and MT82-D4). 5th to 6th in the MT82 really falls off, but 4th to 5th in the MT82-D4 isn't nearly the drop off. You can cruise around all day at 80 in 5th in the MT82-D4 without feeling the need to shift to 6th. 1st gear in the MT82 can also feel too quick and almost useless in everyday driving.

Now on the track, the MT82 is better with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th where you really only have 2nd and 3rd in the MT82-D4 (speeds up to about 115). However, on the 1320, you can trap the MT82-D4 in 3rd saving you another shift over the MT82.

So there are pros and cons to both gearing setups. It really depends on how you use the car. Personally, I don't mind the gearing in the MT82-D4 since I don't track very often. But, with the 305/30/19's on the PP2 only being 26.2" tall, it effectively changes the 3.73 rear gear to about 3.94 compared to the stock 27.7" tires on the PP1, which seems to help a little.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

I agree with Fly2High, the only reason ford made the ratio change is to boost A10 sales, they may say it was to improve mileage but the EE video debunks that. I just wonder how a 18+ PP1 car would do with a 15-17 MT-82 swapped in.

 

[accel]

MT in my '17 is my favorite transmission regardless of actual 15-17 vs 18+ performance. Really enjoy 1-5 range close ratios. And 5-6 forms another gear ratio line for economy. Imo, 6th is a little too tall, but fine.

Evenly ratio- outed gear boxes are boring.

 

[Siege]

With the longer gear ratios of the MT82-D4, 4.88's are comparable to the A10 with 3.55's and makes 6th usable at highway speeds

 

[Threebanger]

I thought this would make for good conversation in the main S550 forum.

The 2018 Ford Mustang saw quite a list of improvements. Most notably, the engine increased in horsepower, torque, and redline RPM. Now with 460 horsepower, 420 lb-ft of torque, and 7,500 RPM, surely the new Mustang is quicker to 60 mph than its predecessor! But... it isn't. Motor Trend has tested both cars at 4.4 seconds. Why? Well in 2018, Ford significantly altered the manual transmission Mustang's gear ratios. And it added a 10-speed automatic transmission as an option. Check out the video to see why the 2015-2017 Ford Mustang GT features the best gear ratios, and what effects changing the ratios of the new Mustang had on performance.

POST STEALER! J/K

 

[Norm Peterson]

I posted his elsewhere but it belongs here

When I look at that video, I heard Ford marketing screaming in it. I am not doubting EE results. I am speaking from the standpoint of Ford selling cars and feel it was done deliberately. Since we were talking auto vs manual differences, I decided to look them up. I went to the web site https://www.zeroto60times.com/ to see what the differences of various Mustangs were. I have no way to validate the numbers or know where they got them from. I am looking at them as a common source only.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is that all of these cars are tiptoeing around the traction limits of their rear tires, and this was only mentioned in passing in the EE video.

FWIW, he does tend to gloss over stuff from time to time, likely in the name of holding the length of his videos down to within the expected attention span of the less technically-oriented portion of his audience. And for this topic, there was way more he could have gone into, but he'd have been so far over an hour if he did that nobody would see it through to the end (I've been picking away at this particular simulation a rather long time, so I have an pretty good idea).

Looking at this, they made the Auto faster from 2018+ but kept the Manual the same. To me, that screams influence. They want to sell automatics, especially the new A10. What I find interesting is when you look at the marginal improvements.

There are other influences going on than just MT vs AT performance stats. I suspect emissions, for one, and every lift-foot upshift brings a momentary emissions spike that needs to be dealt with.

Why would you make the manual faster than the A10 auto that you just spent a ton of money making with a Chevy collaboration?

Another 25 HP isn't going to take half a second out of a 4.4 second zero to 60 time all by itself. Not gonna happen.

I think it also explains why the PP2 doesn't come in A10. Assuming the PP2 package can improve 0-60 times for the auto as well, then it would push it to about 3.6, assuming the same level of improvement. That kills the GT350 and puts it in striking distance of the GT500 for a whole lot less money.

Be careful. Certainly for 0-60 times below 4.0 you're running into diminishing returns as long as your car is front engine RWD. Zero to 60 in 4.0 flat is an average acceleration of 15 mph/sec, which is nearly 0.7g. You're asking a lot from less than 50% rear weight distribution, street tires, and in the MT's case the unpowered time during at least one upshift where you actually lose a fraction of a mph.


Norm

Sponsored