Best automatic transmission

[GoFaster]

The inherent disadvantage of a transmission that has lots of ratio choices so that it can have the most efficient gear at any given time ... is that it's going to change gears a lot if the programming is optimized to make use of it. If you program it so that it immediately picks the proper gear, a twitch of your foot will make it downshift and upshift. If you program in a delay ("are you sure?" - most production examples are like this) then you get that hesitation and bog before it makes up its mind. If you say the heck with it and go CVT then it feels like a rubber band.

The old 3 speed autoboxes only downshifted if you mashed the accelerator all the way to the floor, or when you came to a stop. You pay the price at the pump and in acceleration. The torque converter slippage covered up what would otherwise be lugging. IIRC the 6 cyl AMC Hornet that our family had (a LONG time ago) took 17 seconds to get to 60 mph and got about 17 mpg ...

 

[DPM]

Interestingly, such a unit (although I thought it wasn't ZF's) was being used in Peugeots now.

Pretty sure all the hybrid gubbins is Valeo. Battery is certainly Sanyo, but there's no diagrams up on Servicebox yet for the drive unit.

 

[rabid_chihuahua]

They most certainly DO (GM and Ford, for instance) and typically Tier 1 suppliers do not cross-pollinate R&D between brands. Which is why VAG decided to use the short-lived PD system instead of CR, despite both being Bosch... Bosch developed the CR system with MB, it would have been a breech of contract.

You are in error if you think all Aisin autoboxes are merely an adaptation from a Toyota employed unit. And you do realize Aisin makes a LOT more than transmissions, right? And they supply that stuff to many, many carmakers. Denso is the sole supplier of EFI and DFI on Toyota vehicles, does that mean this Chevrolet Cobalt next to me here has a Toyota oxygen sensor in it because it is from Denso?

So which transmissions have Aisin designed specifically to GM and Ford's requirements, and that don't share a majority of the components with a previously developed Aisin/Toyota transmission?

A truly independent Tier 1 or 2 supplier owns their intellectual property, and are allowed to sell their technology it to anyone that wants it. They may work with exclusively with a single OEM during the development, but they insure that they retain the rights to their patents.

But with Aisin and Toyota, it doesn't work that way: They are co-assigners on several transmission related patents. (and why would Toyota hold patents in the area of transmissions when they don't manufacture transmissions?)
Patent 4,651,577
Patent 5,676,617
Patent 5,533,943

Are you really comparing o2 sensors to transmissions? And despite this apple to oranges comparison, what makes the Cobalt sensor different than the Toyota one? Threads, length of wire, connector? I had the understanding that most 3/4 wire o2 sensors are rather universal... outside of length and connector.

 

[oilhammer]

The unit that found its way into the Ford Taurus/Taurus-X/etc. It was developed by Aisin here (in Michigan) along with input from GM (they also used a version). It does not even look like any other Aisin autobox, completely different. I do not remember what it is called, but other than the little tag you'd never know.

And what is more confusing is, both Ford and GM also use another co-developed transverse 6sp autobox that is NOT from Aisin, that at first glance looks somewhat similar.

Also, I think you are a bit unfamiliar with Aisin, as the transmission branch is actually called 'Aisin-Warner' or 'Aisin AW' which was formed from a joint venture between Aisin- Seiki and Borg-Warner. Toyota and Aisin-Seiki are both shareholders in Aisin AW (Borg-Warner no longer has any interest).

And the F21 AW transmission that the Ford Fusion uses is also used in a LONG list of vehicles... none of them Toyota. All Ford or GM or related applications, with the exception of some French models.

To add to the confusion, Ford also uses some ZF units as well as some CVTs in the newer transverse applications. Getting the correct ID on these transaxles so we get the correct ATF has become a constant problem for those of us in the field.

 

[rabid_chihuahua]

To add to the confusion, Ford also uses some ZF units as well as some CVTs in the newer transverse applications. Getting the correct ID on these transaxles so we get the correct ATF has become a constant problem for those of us in the field.

Yeah, it is a confusing game these days, and it is getting even more confusing. I don't know how you guys that have to service this stuff can keep it all straight.

Alright, I did a bit of double checking, and it appears that I was quite wrong. I always thought that the Toyota u660 was simply their "code name" for the Aisin TF60/80 family (the ones used by Ford, GM and VW). Looking at the diagrams, they are rather different boxes with different schematics and powerflows. I did discover that Aisin does build some of the u660 for Toyota, but it is indeed most likely a Toyota developed design.

I just find the shareholder/supplier relationship rather odd, and I'm quite curious as to the extent of the technology sharing between Toyota and Aisin, but without actually working there I guess I'll never know.

Your thread did remind me, and back on the topic of the OP. I have no love for the CVTs and I'd avoid them like the plague. Woe to all those poor Saturn souls.

 

[GoFaster]

It all depends on the contractual relationship between the auto manufacturer and the supplier - and this can vary!

A typical one these days is that the auto manufacturer provides a specification that the part supplier has to build to, and the part supplier is free to design within that black box as they see fit. "Here's how much space you have, here's the bolt patterns of what it attaches to, here's how much capacity it has to have, here's what it has to do, etc." In these cases the part supplier owns the technology itself and there's nothing stopping them from re-using and adapting someone else's part to fit within those constraints nor is there anything stopping them from in turn using that to fit within someone else's constraints. This type of thing happens ALL the time. It's normally the cheapest way to get the job done these days, because the supplier has years of experience making that type of gizmo and doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.

There are other cases where the auto manufacturer owns the technology and contracts out only the manufacturing and/or assembly but I don't see this as often except for individual parts.

 

[oilhammer]

And in the last couple decades, the Local 3 have really been beating up on those Tier 1 suppliers for CHEAP-CHEAP-CHEAP! Probably been going on longer than that, but it has gotten really bad lately.

So many things say 'China' on them now. Fords are riddled with crappy Chinese plastics in the relay boards and fuseboxes. ChryCo has Chinese bearings blowing up in their transmissions, as well as Chinese door latches. It is nuts. Seems the cheapest bidder gets the contract, and the cheapest bidder ultimately sets up shop in China. Really sad. Even the Getrag manual boxes in the Mustangs are made in China, and blowing apart left and right.

 

[GoFaster]

I know of a situation where a customer of mine was bidding on an assembly to be built to a specification and they could tell by the spec that it was not going to work. They opted to bid it by making use of a better manufacturing method, but of course, this was associated with a (slightly) higher price. Someone else got the contract.

I know which transmission you shouldn't buy as a result but I cannot name it. Suffice it to state that the name has come up in this thread already, and not in a good way.

 

[RabbitGTI]

I know of a situation where a customer of mine was bidding on an assembly to be built to a specification and they could tell by the spec that it was not going to work. They opted to bid it by making use of a better manufacturing method, but of course, this was associated with a (slightly) higher price. Someone else got the contract.

I know which transmission you shouldn't buy as a result but I cannot name it. Suffice it to state that the name has come up in this thread already, and not in a good way.

Was not going to buy a Chrysler six-speed anyway