6 Speed Auto

[Lawsy]

You have 2 cars.

1 has a 3.73 diff, the other has a 4.11 diff. That is, 3.73:1 and 4.11:1 respectfully.

Both cars are running identicle drivetrains appart from the afformentioned diff change...

For every 1000rpm which car moves slower? The one with the HIGHER diff ratio, the 4.11:1 will be going slower. This ratio, the 4:11, is considered to be SHORT diff, but HIGHER in ratio.....

Basic primary school maths teaches us that if the input number is higher in one ratio vs another ratio, then the ratio with the higher input value is considered to be the higher ratio...

That means 4.11:1 is a HIGHER ratio than 3.73:1. That is, there is MORE input speed required to get the same output(1) speed. Its based on input vs output...

Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.... btw, 2 professional mechanical engineers agree with me... They are also car enthusiasts. They both earn allot of money to be exacting in there profession. I'm going with their call on this one...

[SPIKO]

  Grass said:

And why the hell does anyone want anymore that 4 gears in an Auto with the amount of power the T's are pumping?

Do you want your Auto changing every 5 seconds ?

We have a good torque range from 2500 - 4000 RPM, what are you going to do with the extra gears ?

Make 1st lower ? YOu have a torque converter for that... You'll never get it off the line if first is any lower.

Fourth Gear is already high enough for good fuel economy and you SHOULDN'T be doing more than 150 / 160 KMH so who needs a higher top gear, so that only leaves making the box a closer ratio box.

With such a large torque range, why do we need a closer ratio box ? They will start getting slower down the quarter cause they will be spend too much time changing gears...

Just look at the 6 Speed Manuals in the T's. Are they any faster than the 5 speed was ? Don't think so.. Same issue 6 Speed in the C'Dore SS. Every motor mag that has reviewed one say "Waste of time, 6th gear ratio unusable"

Wait for the CVT that the Audi's have....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to add a little.

The CL 65 AMG makes 1000nm of torque standard and still runs a 7 speed auto.

Believe me it makes a difference even down the quarter!

Provided that the box is strong enough and built well enough to handle it.

[QikSmurf]

Thanks for clearing that up Lawsy

My dad told me when I was looking for my first car to buy a manual. He said that when I got to his age (50-ish) I should buy an automatic and let the car drive me around. He said while I'm young I should drive the car myself and have fun.

At the time I just wanted a car - any car. Now I know what he meant about autos

I had an auto XR6T and now my F6 is obviously manual. In stop/start traffic the manual is torture. Everywhere else ( and for me its most of the time ) the manual is just more involving.

Just my 2c worth. This is not meant to stir up another debate between auto vs manual again!

[Lawsy]

  SPIKO said:

  Grass said:

And why the hell does anyone want anymore that 4 gears in an Auto with the amount of power the T's are pumping?

Do you want your Auto changing every 5 seconds ?

We have a good torque range from 2500 - 4000 RPM, what are you going to do with the extra gears ?

Make 1st lower ? YOu have a torque converter for that... You'll never get it off the line if first is any lower.

Fourth Gear is already high enough for good fuel economy and you SHOULDN'T be doing more than 150 / 160 KMH so who needs a higher top gear, so that only leaves making the box a closer ratio box.

With such a large torque range, why do we need a closer ratio box ? They will start getting slower down the quarter cause they will be spend too much time changing gears...

Just look at the 6 Speed Manuals in the T's. Are they any faster than the 5 speed was ? Don't think so.. Same issue 6 Speed in the C'Dore SS. Every motor mag that has reviewed one say "Waste of time, 6th gear ratio unusable"

Wait for the CVT that the Audi's have....

Just to add a little.

The CL 65 AMG makes 1000nm of torque standard and still runs a 7 speed auto.

Believe me it makes a difference even down the quarter!

Provided that the box is strong enough and built well enough to handle it.

Can't wait to see your car run down the quarter man....

Any plans on building a strengthened ZF 6 speed and then fitting it to your beast? Now that would be something else!

Mmmm....

[YOOT]

Hang on, before we all get carried away with how strong this box is, I believe there are many different version that are all rated to different amounts of torque and the one the Falcon is geting is rated very simliar to the T56, around the 650nm mark. Because the trannies that will take 1000nm are costing alot more than $4000, and it would raise the price of the car so much what would be the point. Since offcially Ford isn't going to release the car with that much torque, I doubt they would be spending the huge dollars to get a box that can take B-Double find of torque just so 5% of the buyers can run 10sec 1/4 miles.

It will be a strong box, I just don't think its going to be bullet proof either.

[F6_Tornado]

  Turbo6man said:

Just some further info on why this auto will be quicker than the current four speeder - it has convertor lock-up from 1500rpm in EVERY gear, (yes even reverse). So less slip means both more direct AND constant drive to the wheels

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lockup is a variable on autos and may well engage at 1500RPM but the second part to that equation is throttle position, then there is transmission output speed.

Example of this would be my Pursuit ute.

@207kmh with 100% throttle position in 4th gear the lockup engage!

Below 207kmh with 100% throttle no lockup but with less throttle position it will engage lockup

I.e. back off ~ 0% throttle = lockup in 4th @ 100kmh

Also that 1500RPM wont be engine RPM as you could stall to that RPM and still be stationary (BANG) so it would also be linked to transmission output speed to ensure the lockup never engaged unless the vehicle was moving.

If on the move and considering all other variables the lockup came in at 1500RPM @ 100% throttle position that would be a real bonus and bordering on a virtual manual.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Turbo6man]

  YOOT said:

Hang on, before we all get carried away with how strong this box is, I believe there are many different version that are all rated to different amounts of torque and the one the Falcon is geting is rated very simliar to the T56, around the 650nm mark. Because the trannies that will take 1000nm are costing alot more than $4000, and it would raise the price of the car so much what would be the point. Since offcially Ford isn't going to release the car with that much torque, I doubt they would be spending the huge dollars to get a box that can take B-Double find of torque just so 5% of the buyers can run 10sec 1/4 miles.

It will be a strong box, I just don't think its going to be bullet proof either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not bulletproof??? The box leaves the factory sealed for life. That indicates to me a fairly high confidence factor hmmm???

Of course the cynic in me comes up with this thought ... it may come back to what Ford define the life of the box to be. Maybe when it fails that's the end of it's life??? Could be anything from 50 days to 50 years! :blink:

[Turbo6man]

  Lawsy said:

You have 2 cars.

1 has a 3.73 diff, the other has a 4.11 diff. That is, 3.73:1 and 4.11:1 respectfully.

Both cars are running identicle drivetrains appart from the afformentioned diff change...

For every 1000rpm which car moves slower? The one with the HIGHER diff ratio, the 4.11:1 will be going slower. This ratio, the 4:11, is considered to be SHORT diff, but HIGHER in ratio.....

Basic primary school maths teaches us that if the input number is higher in one ratio vs another ratio, then the ratio with the higher input value is considered to be the higher ratio...

That means 4.11:1 is a HIGHER ratio than 3.73:1. That is, there is MORE input speed required to get the same output(1) speed. Its based on input vs output...

Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.... btw, 2 professional mechanical engineers agree with me... They are also car enthusiasts. They both earn allot of money to be exacting in there profession. I'm going with their call on this one...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhh yes, professional mechanical engineers. You mean like the ones employed at Ford who have given us such magnificent pieces of engineering excellence like the AU/BA handbrake. And the diff clunk. And the sh!tty brakes. And the clunky gearboxes. And engines that won't idle. OK I'll stop now as I'm depressing a lot of people ... :blink:

[Lawsy]

  Turbo6man said:

  Lawsy said:

You have 2 cars.

1 has a 3.73 diff, the other has a 4.11 diff. That is, 3.73:1 and 4.11:1 respectfully.

Both cars are running identicle drivetrains appart from the afformentioned diff change...

For every 1000rpm which car moves slower? The one with the HIGHER diff ratio, the 4.11:1 will be going slower. This ratio, the 4:11, is considered to be SHORT diff, but HIGHER in ratio.....

Basic primary school maths teaches us that if the input number is higher in one ratio vs another ratio, then the ratio with the higher input value is considered to be the higher ratio...

That means 4.11:1 is a HIGHER ratio than 3.73:1. That is, there is MORE input speed required to get the same output(1) speed. Its based on input vs output...

Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.... btw, 2 professional mechanical engineers agree with me... They are also car enthusiasts. They both earn allot of money to be exacting in there profession. I'm going with their call on this one...

Ahhh yes, professional mechanical engineers. You mean like the ones employed at Ford who have given us such magnificent pieces of engineering excellence like the AU/BA handbrake. And the diff clunk. And the sh!tty brakes. And the clunky gearboxes. And engines that won't idle. OK I'll stop now as I'm depressing a lot of people ... :blink:

Respect where respect is due please mate, grow up. I wasn't attacking you, I was just helping out. No need to go on the attack, especially if you can't do a better job yourself.

[EVLKNEVL]

For the sake of this thread and its purpose, can we all please simply refer to driveline ratios as "shorter" or "taller"? I hope we all understand what these terms mean and can all get on topic, which happens to be the release date of the box.

I think I heard somewhere that the Fairlane/LTD models will get a different version of the ZF, aimed towards even more smoothness and refinement, rather than outright internal strength. Can anyone clarify this?