Ford Escape

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by Bwill9886

The 1.6 and the DCT are absolutely a dream in that thing. Even with it being a heavier vehicle, it handles great, there is plenty of torque obviously, and I would say the DCT performed better than my dads DSG in his 2.0T Passat. The gearing seemed bang on the money. I don't think I've ever driven an auto where I didn't complain about it within 10 minutes.

The Escape uses the 6F35 which is a normal planetary gear set automatic with a torque converter, not a dry or wet dual clutch set up. Just because it has select shift control software doesn't mean that it is a DCT.

I actually don't like the 6F35, sure while its working it might be ok, but I've had a bad history with anything coming from the Van Dyke transmission assembly plant in the past, both with cars that my father owned, as well as other family members. AX4N and 4F50Ns that lost the pump shaft between the torque converter and the transmission, ergo no forward drive. Pretty much every FWD torque converter auto they made has or will fail before it was expected to. On the proving grounds at an SAE conference last year a 2011 Fusion with the 2.5L i4 and the 6F35 was suffering a hard engagement into first and felt like it was slipping and eventually overheated. I had to move forward a few feet to get into position to launch the car, came to a stop, then when I rolled into the throttle when given the clear to go it failed to move right away. It then hit first gear hard and chirped the tires when I had not tried to do so.

However my grandfather's 2009 Mariner with the same powertrain hasn't had any issues yet, but he only has around 22-25k miles and most of the ones that have failed had between 106-114k miles.

The 6F55 has a higher torque capacity and might be more durable, but the 6F35 is not as durable due to the lower torque capacity.

I so far prefer the DPS6 DCT in my Focus over the 6F35 for anything with less than 2.0L of displacement. If the Escape used even a wet clutch version of a DCT it would be preferrable to me over the 6F35, but I understand why they went with the 6F35, it just creeps better due to the fluid coupling/ torque converter and feels more conventional.

[BetaDnB]

Originally Posted by Citoriplus

Aztec, God save us from the fool who designed the styling on that POS.

As for the 1.6L ECO Boost, isn't that the engine they are putting into the new Focus ST for 2013?

2.0 L turbo in the Focus ST.

Posted via FF Mobile

[pozi240]

Originally Posted by Pennut

Kinda ironic too that the 1.6L ecoboost is available in the escape but not on the Focus. Whats up with that Ford?

It is available in the Focus, in most markets (even Canada starting next year!), just not the US.... must be the demograhics and the marketing telling them most Americans won't buy them.....

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by pozi240

It is available in the Focus, in most markets (even Canada starting next year!), just not the US.... must be the demograhics and the marketing telling them most Americans won't buy them.....

I'm not sure they have the additional production volume to support launching that engine in three cars in North America for the next model year. They were playing it cautious initially with the 2.0L EcoBoost by only rolling it out in two models the first year, the Edge and Explorer. However now for 2013 it will be available in the Taurus, Focus ST, Escape, Fusion, as well as the Edge and Explorer or 6 product lines in 2013.

It would be one thing if they were producing these engines in North America, but they are currently importing every single EcoBoost i4 from Spain for the 2.0L (Valencia), and I believe Bridgend for the 1.6L which is in the U.K. That is expensive. The 2.0L GDI engine on the other hand is built right here in Dearborn, Michigan.

I really don't know where you're hearing that the powertrain line up will be different in the 2013 Focus in Canada, so far with the MK3 that hasn't been the case in 2012.

[pozi240]

Originally Posted by suss6052

I'm not sure they have the additional production volume to support launching that engine in three cars in North America for the next model year. They were playing it cautious initially with the 2.0L EcoBoost by only rolling it out in two models the first year, the Edge and Explorer. However now for 2013 it will be available in the Taurus, Focus ST, Escape, Fusion, as well as the Edge and Explorer or 6 product lines in 2013.

It would be one thing if they were producing these engines in North America, but they are currently importing every single EcoBoost i4 from Spain for the 2.0L (Valencia), and I believe Bridgend for the 1.6L which is in the U.K. That is expensive. The 2.0L GDI engine on the other hand is built right here in Dearborn, Michigan.

I really don't know where you're hearing that the powertrain line up will be different in the 2013 Focus in Canada, so far with the MK3 that hasn't been the case in 2012.

They are about to start building a few different EB i4 engines again in the Windsor plant I believe (I don't think the Oakville plant has the ability)... there was some talk about this on blueovalforums , which is an employee site, so, it sounds legit anyway.

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

Originally Posted by suss6052

It would be one thing if they were producing these engines in North America, but they are currently importing every single EcoBoost i4 from Spain for the 2.0L (Valencia), and I believe Bridgend for the 1.6L which is in the U.K. That is expensive. The 2.0L GDI engine on the other hand is built right here in Dearborn, Michigan.

Instead of closing Cleveland engine plant #2 they could have built them there. BTW the 3.5L EB comes out of Cleveland #1 so they can build EB engine right here in Ohio.

[Miller88]

What's causing the problem with the 6F35? Is it overheating?

I've convinced my parents to break their ties to Chrysler after receiving a few bad Chrysler vehicles and they will most likely be buying an Edge or an Escape ... I'd hate for them to get one with a bad transmission.

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by Miller88

What's causing the problem with the 6F35? Is it overheating?

I've convinced my parents to break their ties to Chrysler after receiving a few bad Chrysler vehicles and they will most likely be buying an Edge or an Escape ... I'd hate for them to get one with a bad transmission.

I don't know specifically what caused a few of them to fail, including the one at the proving grounds, but personally given past experiences I still don't trust the Van Dyke assembly plant to build a durable product, even if the 6F35 is much improved over the older 4 speed ax4n/4f50n. If you maintain the car and change the transmission fluid early and often it might be ok, but heat is definitely a contributing factor to the failure of the earlier units at least. The fluid gets cooked and then fails to lubricate effectively, damage ensues and the car fails often around 100k miles, at least in cars that my family had owned that never had the fluid changed except maybe 1-2 times in that time frame.

It's likely fine now, but historically Ford hasn't been known for great FWD automatic transmissions as far as longevity is concerned. I also have a personal bias against the use of torque converters on engines with less than 2.0L of displacement, regardless of power output as they tended to really suck the life out of the engine. Manual or DCT is ok as it doesn't have a lossy torque converter eating the power and allowing the car to constantly creep forward due to the peak torque multiplication just off idle.

[pozi240]

Originally Posted by Miller88

What's causing the problem with the 6F35? Is it overheating?

I've convinced my parents to break their ties to Chrysler after receiving a few bad Chrysler vehicles and they will most likely be buying an Edge or an Escape ... I'd hate for them to get one with a bad transmission.

It seemed to be more wide spread about 4-5 years ago, and the recall and reflash cured most of the speed "flare" issues with them. My wife has had her 2012 Escape for over a year (with 24k on it now) and the 6F in that has been (knock on wood), flawless. I did talk with my service manager (who has been very open and honest in the past with me) about past concerns with this tranny, and she assured me that Ford has "finally got it right" with the 2011 up models...... take that for what its worth. LOL

[Bwill9886]

Originally Posted by suss6052

The Escape uses the 6F35 which is a normal planetary gear set automatic with a torque converter, not a dry or wet dual clutch set up. Just because it has select shift control software doesn't mean that it is a DCT.

Never said that's why I thought it was a DCT. I just thought they were mating the wet clutch DCT to the 1.6L across the board. I never looked it up, my mistake.

I'm even more impressed then that it performed as well as it did. Though, like you said in the statement below, it only has 100 miles on it so of course it should be working pretty well... for now I suppose.

Originally Posted by suss6052

I actually don't like the 6F35, sure while its working it might be ok, but I've had a bad history with anything coming from the Van Dyke transmission assembly plant in the past, both with cars that my father owned, as well as other family members. AX4N and 4F50Ns that lost the pump shaft between the torque converter and the transmission, ergo no forward drive. Pretty much every FWD torque converter auto they made has or will fail before it was expected to. On the proving grounds at an SAE conference last year a 2011 Fusion with the 2.5L i4 and the 6F35 was suffering a hard engagement into first and felt like it was slipping and eventually overheated. I had to move forward a few feet to get into position to launch the car, came to a stop, then when I rolled into the throttle when given the clear to go it failed to move right away. It then hit first gear hard and chirped the tires when I had not tried to do so.

However my grandfather's 2009 Mariner with the same powertrain hasn't had any issues yet, but he only has around 22-25k miles and most of the ones that have failed had between 106-114k miles.

The 6F55 has a higher torque capacity and might be more durable, but the 6F35 is not as durable due to the lower torque capacity.

I so far prefer the DPS6 DCT in my Focus over the 6F35 for anything with less than 2.0L of displacement. If the Escape used even a wet clutch version of a DCT it would be preferrable to me over the 6F35, but I understand why they went with the 6F35, it just creeps better due to the fluid coupling/ torque converter and feels more conventional.

Interesting background, thanks for the info. I now remember where I have heard about this trans before, as I had a buddy who owned a Fusion and he experienced said issues.

They didn't use the wet-clutch DCT, I would assume, because the bean counters stepped in just like they did with the dry-clutch DCT decision for our Focus.