The 2017 Ford F150 SVT Raptor will introduce the world to the 10-speed automatic transmission that was designed in conjunction with General Motors. The Raptor will likely be put through more rigorous real-world testing than any other model, so was it a wise idea to introduce a brand new transmission in this high performance model?

 

Of course - why not?

 

 

10 speed = very desirable in the Raptor, IMO. I continue to believe though that Ford needs to do some damage control on the cost... Pushing $70k is really getting up in to the stratosphere.

That said, I'd still drool for a Raptor...

 

Just a question (may be another stupid one too): Why not develop a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) instead of creating something as complicated as a 10-speed? One with that many gears is going to be doing a lot of "work" in day to day driving. Seems like it would have a lot of things to go wrong.

- Jack

 

I hate CVT's. You ever driven one? Ford had one in the 500 and got rid of it. Nissan has had them for a while, and Subaru just started using them. They are not an enthusiast's transmission.

 

Testing the ten-speed in off-road, competitive test simulations in test mule Raptors should uncover any shortcomings before the transmissions go into mass-production. If they hold up and are certified for use in the Raptors, they will be more than adequate for what I'd ever use it for.

 

CVTs are a lot like Communism, they sound great in theory but suck in practice. I don't know of a single maker that has used them and not dumped them at the next model change except Honduh and they can't make an automatic tranny worth a damn in the first place.

From what I'm hearing the new 10 speed box will be like a lot of the new higher gear count boxes and it will skip gears to maintain the best possible gear ratio. Instead of going 1-10 and 10-1 it might go 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or something like that depending on the load requirements.

 

Is a CVT like the old Dynaflow used by Buick in the 50s? My family had several of those. They worked pretty well in a car. They were even used by some drag racers behind Chrysler hemis.

 

I don't think so, Jim. As I heard it, the dynaflow was pretty much like a total torque converter. The CVT uses a belt with pulleys that expand or contract to change the effective diameter. It allows the engine to operate at the ideal RPM regardless of speed and load (although it DOES have a torque converter too, so you do get higher RPM during acceleration or other heavy load).

Edit: I know some automakers have not had success with them, but that doesn't mean they are not an idea worth working on.

- Jack

 

Ok. You never felt a shift. You put it in drive and it never shifted. Had park, reverse, low and drive.

 

When you have a vehicle with a 400+ft-lb torque curve from just above idle to redline, I'd dearly like to know what the 'ideal rpm' is

I think the 10-speed - on this truck - is just a marketing 'because we can' gimmick. With that powerplant you could use a 3-speed tranny (with a TC, of course) lol. Engineering excess driven by 'cachet' ... imho.

MGD

 

If the torque curve is truly flat, then I suppose it would be a point that gives best fuel economy. I know fuel economy is a driving force in the development and adoption of CVTs.

I'm certainly not saying that CVTs don't have weaknesses - they probably do, but automatics have weaknesses too and adding gear ratios to them seems to me to be a questionable "improvement".

- Jack

 

^^^ From all we've seen so far, the 6R80 is superior to the 4R75E in every way, despite having 2 more gears crammed into the same volume, and an operating temperature ~25 degrees higher.

MGD

 

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just questioning the American "More is better" approach.

A CVT seems a simpler concept, at least to me. But, I have no idea how reliable they currently are over the long term.

- Jack