2.3 vs 2.7

[Jomo]

A manual is ALWAYS more reliable.

Then you ought to read up on the predecessor to the Bronco manual transmission, the Getrag MT-82 (6MTI500) used in the Mustang. Class action lawsuits galore! Gears are not always the problem in transmissions. In this case, the linkage design/implementation was.

The Bronco manual transmission (7MTI550) is a revised, uprated version of the MT-82, made in the same Chinese factory. Hopefully it incorporates learned lessons from both Getrag and Ford.

Sponsored

 

[Rick Astley]

Then you ought to read up on the predecessor to the Bronco manual transmission, the Getrag MT-82 (6MTI500) used in the Mustang. Class action lawsuits galore! Gears are not always the problem in transmissions. In this case, the linkage design/implementation was.

The Bronco manual transmission (7MTI550) is a revised, uprated version of the MT-82, made in the same Chinese factory. Hopefully it incorporates learned lessons from both Getrag and Ford.

Bringing up a single data-point to refute what has been a correct statement for the better part of a century seems a bit premature. MT's are, in fact, more reliable than AT's. History has proven that many times over.

Doesn't mean that will be the case going forward as AT's take over the world, but we aren't there yet. And I don't need to bring up Honda's AT's mated to their V6's to win this argument, it was won by @Wizard1183 previously.

 

[Wizard1183]

Then you ought to read up on the predecessor to the Bronco manual transmission, the Getrag MT-82 (6MTI500) used in the Mustang. Class action lawsuits galore! Gears are not always the problem in transmissions. In this case, the linkage design/implementation was.

The Bronco manual transmission (7MTI550) is a revised, uprated version of the MT-82, made in the same Chinese factory. Hopefully it incorporates learned lessons from both Getrag and Ford.

That’s was one instance and it was linkage. Not the transmission itself. Let’s get back to apples to apples here

now 30yrs from now? Probably won’t. Be slushbox but some type of electronic integrated auto/manual transmission where it’s push button shifting or something. But an auto tranny is crap. Has always been crap.

In racing circuit, they’ve just now within 10yrs created an auto transmission to outperform manuals. Yes. Shift points are now faster. No doubt. But the 4spd rockcrusher M-22 is far more reliable than a 700R4 and so on...we can argue til cows come home, ultimately I’ll put my money where my mouth is and bet on a manual outperforming an auto day in day out.
It’s simple logic. Create a product. Now create same product with MORE parts. Which is more reliable? Modern is not always better. Many want convenience. Laziness. Ppl pay to be more lazy. That’s a fact. Companies caught on to it. Ppl don’t care that reliability standpoints now changed and aren’t reliable. But it’s easy for an automaker to convince a deadhead their 30spd auto is reliable, since it creates 70mpg+ on the highway attached to a V8 carburetor gas hog while someone says I’ll take the gas hog V8 with a 6spd manual and row some gears. And then the majority see the manual as ancient ect. 6 yrs down the road mr manual is still put putting no issues and the modernistic 30spd auto is yet to get better than 4 yrs prob free with 120k mi on it....exaggerated? A little bit. Just a little bit but def not far off the mark at all

 

[AHop]

Then you ought to read up on the predecessor to the Bronco manual transmission, the Getrag MT-82 (6MTI500) used in the Mustang. Class action lawsuits galore! Gears are not always the problem in transmissions. In this case, the linkage design/implementation was.

The Bronco manual transmission (7MTI550) is a revised, uprated version of the MT-82, made in the same Chinese factory. Hopefully it incorporates learned lessons from both Getrag and Ford.

The MT-88 is not based on the MT-82. It was a new design, only sharing a similar naming structure.

"Ford calls this new seven-speed transmission MT88, and it's an entirely new architecture, not based on the Getrag MT82 six-speed that's in today's Mustang." From this Car and Driver article: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33301752/2021-ford-bronco-manual-transmission-specs/

 

[Mattwings]

I have had manual and automatic transmission failure. Manuals also require maintenance and clutch replacement, which isn’t easy or inexpensive these days. Most automatics will last as long as their power plants if maintained adequately and driven reasonably. I wouldn’t argue the manuals are more simple and likely can be made to last longer , all things being equal. Manuals do not perform better these days in most empirical categories . They are typically slower in instrumented tests, reduce features and options in many cases, including the Bronco and they generally do not achieve better fuel economy. If you tell me you prefer the experience, I am with you all the way (I don’t). If you tell me it’s a performance advantage, I might need to see proof

 

[Jomo]

That’s was one instance and it was linkage. Not the transmission itself.

Yes, the Ford/Getrag MT-82 required considerable external linkage which was the source of the problems, but the MT-88 is a similar design. Both these Getrag transmissions do not have a conventional transmission tail housing where shift linkage is solidly supported. I think this is a means to sell cheaper transmissions and limit the liability to Getrag. Place most of the responsibility of trouble prone areas like shift linkage into other's hands.

The MT-88 is not based on the MT-82. It was a new design, only sharing a similar naming structure.

Sure, the MT-88 is a new design rated for more torque and more gears. But like the MT-82, it also requires considerable external shift linkage, which was the past issue. This is the area of my concern. Ford needs to ensure that this shift linkage issue is put to bed with a robust design on these "incomplete" Getrag gearboxes.

Tremec manual gearbox on top and Getrag below with external shift linkage.

 

[Wizard1183]

Yes, the Ford/Getrag MT-82 required considerable external linkage which was the source of the problems, but the MT-88 is a similar design. Both these Getrag transmissions do not have a conventional transmission tail housing where shift linkage is solidly supported. I think this is a means to sell cheaper transmissions and limit the liability to Getrag. Place most of the responsibility of trouble prone areas like shift linkage into other's hands.



Sure, the MT-88 is a new design rated for more torque and more gears. But like the MT-82, it also requires considerable external shift linkage, which was the past issue. This is the area of my concern. Ford needs to ensure that this shift linkage issue is put to bed with a robust design on these "incomplete" Getrag gearboxes.

Tremec manual gearbox on top and Getrag below with external shift linkage.

Yea Idk S**t about Getrag. I wish theyd have gone with Tremec. A tried and true in tranny making. The pic you posted? I saw that comparison pic before. Scares me they extended it way they have without a solid foundation. However I think a company or even yourself could probably formu8late something far more stringent than the crap theyre using. Its not difficult to make. Maybe MGW comes up with something? Youll pay for it? But excellent company and products. If Hurst makes something? Throw your money in the trash before buying Hurst

 

[Jomo]

Yea Idk S**t about Getrag. I wish theyd have gone with Tremec. A tried and true in tranny making. The pic you posted? I saw that comparison pic before. Scares me they extended it way they have without a solid foundation. However I think a company or even yourself could probably formu8late something far more stringent than the crap theyre using. Its not difficult to make. Maybe MGW comes up with something? Youll pay for it? But excellent company and products. If Hurst makes something? Throw your money in the trash before buying Hurst

I haven't seen too much on the manual trans Bronco and what Ford has done to improve the design of the shift linkage. One thing for certain is that this is a solvable problem from the factory. The Subaru BRZ uses similar external linkage and is a known sweet shifting gearbox. Years ago, BMW used a similar Getrag gearbox to the MT-82 for their M3's.

 

[rmanecke]

If this is my only car and commuter.... 2.7 and auto. Sometimes... at the end of the day... a guy just needs instant power with no work, thought, or skill involved, right? Plus... it's easier to stay just ahead of the next guy while pretending your not intentionally staying just ahead of the next guy with an automatic. When they see you downshifting and working the clutch... they know your just being a PITA on purpose.

Since this is my fun car, planned for actual off roading at slower speeds... when I am rested and in a good mood... 2.3 and stick. With the badlands version this option has some other advantages too in addition to being potentially available sooner.

Also... I can't believe how much power comes out of the 3.0 ecoboost in my wifes expedition MAX. I think that the 2.3 in a tiny two door bronco will be PLENTY.

 

[evoaire]

Well, I’d say, if you want or need the extra low end grunt the 7M gives, then you’ll be buying the 2.3. Down side to this engine is it’s DI ( direct injection ) some say is bad for fouling valves, other say it’s no problem. Other down side, it won’t have the option that you get with the 4A. This may help with bad wintry roads.

On the other hand if you need or want the 4A feature go with the 2.7. If your not trying to climb steep rocks or pull tree stumps you don’t need the low end torque of the 2.3. Plus side to the 2.7, it has DI and PI (port injection) helps keep those valves clean.

There’s more that can be said between the two. These are my biggest reasons for deciding one over the other.

2.3 DI, manual, more torque, no 4A.
2.7, DI & PI, Auto, less torque, 4A,

I want 2.7 currently as configured, manual, 4A, SAS.
Maybe I’m mistaken on some of this, I’m sure someone will chime in if so.

 

[Rollerstud98]

Well, I’d say, if you want or need the extra low end grunt the 7M gives, then you’ll be buying the 2.3. Down side to this engine is it’s DI ( direct injection ) some say is bad for fouling valves, other say it’s no problem. Other down side, it won’t have the option that you get with the 4A. This may help with bad wintry roads.

On the other hand if you need or want the 4A feature go with the 2.7. If your not trying to climb steep rocks or pull tree stumps you don’t need the low end torque of the 2.3. Plus side to the 2.7, it has DI and PI (port injection) helps keep those valves clean.

There’s more that can be said between the two. These are my biggest reasons for deciding one over the other.

2.3 DI, manual, more torque, no 4A.
2.7, DI & PI, Auto, less torque, 4A,

I want 2.7 currently as configured, manual, 4A, SAS.
Maybe I’m mistaken on some of this, I’m sure someone will chime in if so.

4A is available with manual. On the Badlands at least.

 

[PWillette]

4A is available with manual. On the Badlands at least.

4A is actually standard on BL 2.3, 7MT. This configuration also get 4.70 ratio w/o having to Squatch.

 

[pitter_patter]

Unless you want the manual, yes. It's a no brainer for the percentage of total vehicle cost. (5%)

 

[Drex]

Complexity adds more failure points. A stick as a lever is more reliable than a pulley hoist. Scale up as high as you like, won't change the core truth. (For both engines and transmissions.)

Pure speculation with no facts to follow; As an aside; (and I have no information either way to suggest it is true), the skuttlebutt on this forum is that some options are possibly being held to prevent C.A.F.E. drops that will trigger gas guzzler taxes. It seems plausible. Ford doesn't want to get stuck with those and adding a charge for next model year will have people with pitchforks at the next corporate retreat. I always wondered why the 2.7 was so much more of an upcharge than other applications. If (and only an 'if') they were trying to ensure a 2.3 heavy mix, charging that hefty premium for it makes sense, nudge people back to the 4. After this initial rush (and Ford bending over backwards suggesting people buy the lighter Bronco's with the small engine) perhaps the mix will go back to what they estimated once the rabid fans get their units. To the point: if Ford is going to dole out units each quarter to keep the 2.7 a low percentage of builds (for fuel economy or other reasons, it would drastically change the reservation time stamp order.) Same thing with Sasquatch. I fear this is going to unravel come the end of next May. Again, rampant speculation on my part, it fits the limited facts we have, but I could also spin a yarn saying something different that would also fit. Be an interesting ride

 

[Aut-Lin]

Well, I’d say, if you want or need the extra low end grunt the 7M gives, then you’ll be buying the 2.3. Down side to this engine is it’s DI ( direct injection ) some say is bad for fouling valves, other say it’s no problem. Other down side, it won’t have the option that you get with the 4A. This may help with bad wintry roads.

On the other hand if you need or want the 4A feature go with the 2.7. If your not trying to climb steep rocks or pull tree stumps you don’t need the low end torque of the 2.3. Plus side to the 2.7, it has DI and PI (port injection) helps keep those valves clean.

There’s more that can be said between the two. These are my biggest reasons for deciding one over the other.

2.3 DI, manual, more torque, no 4A.
2.7, DI & PI, Auto, less torque, 4A,

I want 2.7 currently as configured, manual, 4A, SAS.
Maybe I’m mistaken on some of this, I’m sure someone will chime in if so.

4A is available on Black Diamond with 7MT as an option.

Sponsored