@ColbyFromBama This is me being sad over the internet about your choices that have zero effect on me other than me thinking you got dropped as a baby...
Sponsored
Thanks you @ColbyFromBama for being consistent and bringing a smile to my face!! It's nice to be noticed.
@ColbyFromBama This is me being sad over the internet about your choices that have zero effect on me other than me thinking you got dropped as a baby...
Ok I take it back. Maybe it's just you. Lol. I comment cause I'm boooored. And my bronco won't be here for like 2 months. Wtf else am I gonna do but try to amuse myself on the internet while drinking on my patio looking at my fabulous backyard I just finished working on... LolYou keep continuing to comment (not about engines). So obviously youāre REALLY upset. You donāt have to be so angry. Itās just an engine thread on a Bronco forum...
Apparently a bored and over-zealous moderator felt my previous reply wasn't worthing of keeping around, so I'll add more detail. To start, what I said before:First off, nobody is outraged or complaining (besides you). This thread logically explains why I chose the 2.3L over the 2.7L. This is due to the torque rating of the 10R60. Yes, most car people research the transmission before purchasing. You donāt?
The transmission is called 10R60 because itās rated at 600 Nm. 600 Nm translates to 443 pound-feet of torque, which is very close to the 415 pound-feet (563 Nm) of the 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6. If you canāt see the problem with having a transmission with a torque limit so close to what the stock engine produces, then I canāt help you.
Apparently a bored and over-zealous moderator felt my previous reply wasn't worthing of keeping around, so I'll add more detail. To start, what I said before:
The assumptions are strong with this post.
To add:
most car people research the transmission before purchasing
Citation needed. Personally, I have never researched a transmission before purchasing a vehicle. I'm either buying the manual or the automatic. I have no reason to assume that a manufacturer would supply a transmission with a vehicle if the transmission wasn't capable of working with that vehicle. None of my friends (including fellow auto enthusiasts) or family have ever needed to do this either. I realize my evidence is anecdotal, but so is yours, only I have numbers on my side.
The transmission is called 10R60 because itās rated at 600 Nm.
Citation needed. I've heard this mentioned, but just because something is repeated on the internet doesn't make it true. "60" could represent any number of values, included lb./ft., or even nothing in particular at all.
If you canāt see the problem with having a transmission with a torque limit so close to what the stock engine produces, then I canāt help you.
Your assumption is that the rating that you have assumed is in fact the absolute maximum for the transmission and that there would be no buffer or extra tolerance built into the unit. Ford (and other manufacturers) over-engineer critical parts, yet for the transmission would decide to rate it for it's absolute maximum with no extra tolerance?
The end result is that if those assumptions you made lead you to be more comfortable choosing the 2.3, that's fine for you. Fun fact, I've never fretted over details like this and not since the '82 vehicle that was handed down to me have I ever experience (manual or auto) a transmission issue in a vehicle. Nor have I had any major engine issues or any other major components. We drive our vehicles, maintain them according to the manufacturers' recommendations and with rare exception, keep them until a child kills them . So, what has worked for me is to choose the vehicle I want with the features and options I want and enjoy them without worrying about theoreticals that never come to fruition. I've seen from your response to the other posts that disagreed with your viewpoint that you know where the "Yuck" button is, so I'm expecting to see that shortly.
now this has to be the dumbest and at the same time most fascinating and entertaining thread I've read so far on this forum, I even got to use the laugh and puke emoji extensively
Thanks for the late night entertainment, I'm off to bed now, my boy starts his first ever job as a grease monkey at Jiffy Lube tomorrow, a new world begins for him.
Thanks for the entertainment!
(edit to add: looking forward to my puke emoji! Haha!)
Except your argument is based on the assumption that the "60" strictly implies 600 newton/meters. Internals can be upgraded fairly easily to get a little more headroom. Especially when there are several other transmissions within the same family to draw from. Ford may have just wanted to keep the 60/80/100 nomenclature system for simplicity purposes.Iām making assumptions based on the torque rating of the transmission. Itās pretty simple stuff.
Exactly, for the MT88 the "88" denotes the distance between main shaft and countershaft in millimeters. Not "88"0 N-m.Except your argument is based on the assumption that the "60" strictly implies 600 newton/meters. Internals can be upgraded fairly easily to get a little more headroom. Especially when there are several other transmissions within the same family to draw from. Ford may have just wanted to keep the 60/80/100 nomenclature system for simplicity purposes.
Youāre absolutely right and I completely agree. Thatās why itās just an assumption based on typical naming nomenclature. There very well might be upgrades we donāt know about.Except your argument is based on the assumption that the "60" strictly implies 600 newton/meters. Internals can be upgraded fairly easily to get a little more headroom. Especially when there are several other transmissions within the same family to draw from. Ford may have just wanted to keep the 60/80/100 nomenclature system for simplicity purposes.
Edit: Not to mention that it's not uncommon for upgrades to be done over time without changing the designation. It's not unheard of for a motor to pick up 10, 20, 30+ horsepower over a few years but be called the exact same thing the entire run. The 10R60 could have started as 600 newton/meters but have been fitted with upgraded clutches or shafts or whatever the limiting factor was to something more similar to what's in the 10R80. Now it's good to 650, 700 or more. Maybe the physical dimensions of the 10R60 case made more sense or was more readily available than the one for the 10R80 but they were able to get most of the guts from the 10R80 in there. That's the advantage of having families of assemblies. I've spent more than 20 years in manufacturing. Currently in the automotive aftermarket where making big power is our specialty. Constant revisions in the name of more performance and/or durability is a fact of life. The simple fact is that we don't know. It could have changed. It could have not. But Ford is willing to put a warranty on it and bean counters hate paying out claims. And we've not heard of a single transmission failure while they've been beating the hell out of the Bronco at events this spring.
Being that the Bronco is a first year model, thatās probably the smartest idea. I too will be looking into extended warranties.This is why I went with a dealer the included a free lifetime powertrain warranty. If it dies I will send it back to Ford for replacement.