Focus Fanatics Forum banner

41 - 60 of 110 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,568 Posts
I've wondered how much of the issue is due to electronic 'overhead' or the extra miniscule amount of time it takes a computer to calculate varied response, and the impact that has on what should be millisecond responses at worst.

I say that after rebuilding a lot of ATX and noticing that it seems that regardless of the money expended there the OEMs have more trouble making them shift in all regimens and conditions as well overall since they went to solenoids as versus simple 100% pure mechanical /hydraulic actions as performed by a 'no solenoid' valve body. The ones with no solenoids have fewer issues or quirks on every type I've worked on.

That alone of course was not going to fix this issue but likely makes it a bit worse. I think Ford was actually onto something with all the talk of 'relearning how to shift' but even they didn't realize the computer needs to relearn shifting literally nearly every time it shifts, it never ever does get it learned enough to work right in every case. Impossible, the variables are simply too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I have a 2018. Drove for a year and started to get shudder between 1 and 2. Had the weird noise when coming to stops and delays getting back up to speed when in traffic, and it slows and speeds back up.
I switched to 93 octane, and after 4 tanks car was ABSOLUTY PERFECT. We are getting 100 degree temps here right now and the car drives perfect.
My opinion with this is the engine needs more power to run dct, and without it causes trans to shift poorly.
With 93 it holds gears better and no more noises coming to stop. Pickup is DRAMTICALLY improved . It drives as good as any traditional automatic. This is on the 2018 and I cannot speak to older versions, but this was the fix for my car.
My brother in law has a new 2018 also and is starting to have same symptoms and he is going to try 93 also, so we will see if it improves his car too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Okay, so I have to ask: What does running a higher octane fuel have to do with a design flaw? I’m not doubting you, I’m just trying to understand if it actually helps. I have no problem throwing a full tank of 91 in my little 2.0L if you guys actually think it will help? Btw, in in CA, so 93 isn’t an option at the pumps.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
w/ my magic bag
Joined
·
29,375 Posts
I'm surprised this isn't more of a busy topic on this forum almost like people are in denial of this which is a huge black eye for Ford and a slap in the face of people that they talked into buying the DCT. I guess hope of a long term fix is gone.

I knew in 2012 there were issues and the two DCTs I test drove just didn't seem right and ended up with the only 5 speed on the lot in the color and options we wanted. Been a great car since.
Thats also what I found after driving a few different ones back in '11....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I figured I might take some crap for this, but I am not BSing. This is a information forum and I am just putting out what I think is useful info, and what helped my car.
You have to give it more than just 1 tankful. Each tank gets better. By my 4th tank all symptoms were gone. Drives great.
We are in a heat wave here. 100 degrees. Car drives great. No shudder, hesitation.
For a few extra bucks, and a great running car, I will stick with 93. Reason I tried it is that in the manual, it says for better results or heavy duty use Premium. And the way I use my car it probably does fall under that. I make multiple trips per day, and a lot of city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
They didn't correct it because they COULDN'T correct it.

The absolutely dry clutch is much of the issue; you cannot get a dry clutch to release the same way twice. At least not on the microscopic level Ford was trying to do there. Now double the number of discs and tell us how it gets better. Read what the engineer says about the coefficient of friction changing to where it wouldn't stay still.........the problem.

The clutch assembly needed to be wet.
I've wondered how much of the issue is due to electronic 'overhead' or the extra miniscule amount of time it takes a computer to calculate varied response, and the impact that has on what should be millisecond responses at worst.

I say that after rebuilding a lot of ATX and noticing that it seems that regardless of the money expended there the OEMs have more trouble making them shift in all regimens and conditions as well overall since they went to solenoids as versus simple 100% pure mechanical /hydraulic actions as performed by a 'no solenoid' valve body. The ones with no solenoids have fewer issues or quirks on every type I've worked on.

That alone of course was not going to fix this issue but likely makes it a bit worse. I think Ford was actually onto something with all the talk of 'relearning how to shift' but even they didn't realize the computer needs to relearn shifting literally nearly every time it shifts, it never ever does get it learned enough to work right in every case. Impossible, the variables are simply too much.
Yep, poor design is what it came down to. Dry DCTs are not inherently bad; they're cheaper, lighter, and more fuel efficient. They're also quite a bit less durable due to excessive heat and unmitigated friction. It's pretty much guaranteed that they will have rougher shifts than their wet counterpart.

To Ford's credit, they pretty said "We can fix that. Hold my beer." They put serious time and money into (an attempt at) engineering a dry DCT that keeps all the positives above and reduces the negatives. If they had succeeded, I think people would have gotten used to the different/noticeable shifting that comes with any DCT.

But they failed and instead of throwing in the towel and eating the cost of R&D, they went to market with a defective product, gambling on the ability to fix them later. That was their first mistake; the second was failing to recognize the point at which the DPS6 was a lost cause and doubling down, continuing to use a clearly defective transmission. This was all made worse by defective/inadequate materials (input shaft seals, clutch plates, and TCM solder). Mistakes three through twenty include failing to be proactive about addressing the situation after discontinuing the production of the DPS6 in new vehicles and blaming the customer.

I knew what kind of transmission came in the Focus when I bought it. I actively chose the Focus for its DCT. I was excited to see a dry DCT that seemed to deliver. Innovation in the auto industry is slow and incremental; if the DPS6 had worked, it would have been pretty cool with the potential for widespread use.

I have a 2018. Drove for a year and started to get shudder between 1 and 2. Had the weird noise when coming to stops and delays getting back up to speed when in traffic, and it slows and speeds back up.
I switched to 93 octane, and after 4 tanks car was ABSOLUTY PERFECT. We are getting 100 degree temps here right now and the car drives perfect.
My opinion with this is the engine needs more power to run dct, and without it causes trans to shift poorly.
With 93 it holds gears better and no more noises coming to stop. Pickup is DRAMTICALLY improved . It drives as good as any traditional automatic. This is on the 2018 and I cannot speak to older versions, but this was the fix for my car.
My brother in law has a new 2018 also and is starting to have same symptoms and he is going to try 93 also, so we will see if it improves his car too.
I figured I might take some crap for this, but I am not BSing. This is a information forum and I am just putting out what I think is useful info, and what helped my car.
You have to give it more than just 1 tankful. Each tank gets better. By my 4th tank all symptoms were gone. Drives great.
We are in a heat wave here. 100 degrees. Car drives great. No shudder, hesitation.
For a few extra bucks, and a great running car, I will stick with 93. Reason I tried it is that in the manual, it says for better results or heavy duty use Premium. And the way I use my car it probably does fall under that. I make multiple trips per day, and a lot of city.
I'm not going to give you crap, per se, but I would like to point out that your story is anecdotal (as most of these "fixes" are), and that it doesn't really make sense that running 93 would fix the problems inherent to the DPS6. Don't me wrong, running 93 may in fact improve performance in some situations, but the DPS6 is defective in several ways, some of which can in no way be affected by the octane rating of the fuel you use.

93 is about $0.70-0.80 more per gallon where I live. That's $7-8 more per tank. I guess it can't hurt to try, though giving it 4-5 tanks means I'm paying upwards of $40 just to test something that almost certainly won't make any difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,568 Posts
X2 on that fuel is the cure thing, it is not and no way can the trans know what fuel is in the car.

Butt dyno time and space (as well as mind) warping to the max. 50% of any car problem cure is simply convincing the driver it is true, unfortunately Ford did not hire enough mind control specialists. They should have hired the current president, people seem to believe anything that guy says and a 40% cure would be in effect in one day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Just letting you guys know. It fixed the problem. I think its a combination of engine and trans . My last fill up was exactly $5 more, was .40cents more a gallon.. Coming from a v6 Ranger its still cheap. And is still better than $2000 for a new trans.
You won't know till you try. And just go back to Regular gas after 5 tanks. Cannot hurt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
X2 on that fuel is the cure thing, it is not and no way can the trans know what fuel is in the car.

Butt dyno time and space (as well as mind) warping to the max. 50% of any car problem cure is simply convincing the driver it is true, unfortunately Ford did not hire enough mind control specialists. They should have hired the current president, people seem to believe anything that guy says and a 40% cure would be in effect in one day.
No the trans does not know what gas is in the car. The engine does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,898 Posts
No the trans does not know what gas is in the car. The engine does.
The problem is the transmission and if octane was a widespread fix this information will spread quickly but I think your "fix" didn't cure the problem as much as it lessened the symptoms for now and likely your issues will return.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
We will see. Right now every tankful it gets better. Driving it is very enjoyable. I also just did a search on premium fuel on here and found multiple threads that backup my claims. Even the famous Tom chimed in with positive comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
I’ll try running premium gas for a few tanks & see how she runs. I mean, it can’t hurt anything & after hearing about the 2018, I’m curious to see if my 2013 will respond the same way. If not, it’s not big deal, the car still gets 28-29 mpg city.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
The higher octane makes sense to me. I have always thought that a little 4 cylinder engine does not have the spare horsepower to operate an automatic properly. That was the main reason I purchased a 5 speed. 160,000 miles later on my original clutch.... I'm more than happy. We had a Geo tracker with a three speed automatic..... After that Fiasco I swore to never do 4 cylinder automatics. If you can't or wont drive a standard get a bigger six cylinder engine. If you want the gas mileage get a small motor and a standard transmission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
The higher octane makes sense to me. I have always thought that a little 4 cylinder engine does not have the spare horsepower to operate an automatic properly. That was the main reason I purchased a 5 speed. 160,000 miles later on my original clutch.... I'm more than happy. We had a Geo tracker with a three speed automatic..... After that Fiasco I swore to never do 4 cylinder automatics. If you can't or wont drive a standard get a bigger six cylinder engine. If you want the gas mileage get a small motor and a standard transmission.
You're living in the past man. Do you realize how many 4 cylinders today make close to 300 horsepower, and some even more than 300 horsepower.
The Geo tracker didn't even make a 100 horsepower. Times have changed.


Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Sorry I spoke way out of turn. Yes a 4 cylinder can make huge horsepower..... but I was referring to 4 cylinder's that are mass produced for high mpg and low cost.


If you have the cash just go with a Porsche or Audi 4 cylinder automatic. I can guarantee their automatics shift nicely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,568 Posts
More like he had an engine problem and could not tell the difference in engine and trans as pretty much confirmed by post #49.

'You won't know till you try.'

Some people can think well enough to not have to try every witch doctor's trick there is to already know the result before doing it.

'...found multiple threads that backup my claims.'

Yes, so say the 40% who have us in the mess we are now in. So many of them do not strike up one iota of thinking when making 'truthful' claims which then HAVE TO BE lies in a new 'truth is not truth' world. The kind of impossibly silly rules goofy people come up with when they get together. Live it wild people, nobody said we had to be smart about anything and that renders ALL judgements as incompetent. There's no global warming and the economy is the best it has ever been, what utter rot.

So glad I do not live in that world.

The Rule of McDonald's now governs all. Just ask the Ford engineering department or the furniture guy that is CEO. My son and I were joking the other day about the DCT fiasco and he proposed that all the complaints would go away if the CEO offered a free table and chairs to all the upset DCT customers to satisfy them, it could actually work, hah! You gotta love the 40%, they are far from boring if nothing else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
We will see. Right now every tankful it gets better. Driving it is very enjoyable. I also just did a search on premium fuel on here and found multiple threads that backup my claims. Even the famous Tom chimed in with positive comments.
Interesting. Can you provide a link to where Tom indicated higher octane improved shifting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
1turbofocus
FF Affiliate




Join Date: Oct 2003
Fan#: 1123
Location: Belmont, NC
What I Drive: 2000 ZX3 / 2002 SVT Turbocharged

Posts: 29,805
Points 99,192, Level 100



Level Up 0% Completed



Forum Activity 100%





FF Reputation: 160
Buy-Sell-Trade Rating: (31)

With out a doubt the MK3 will make better HP/TQ , better daily driving , MPG from 93 + fuels
I have seen 100`s of datalogs of the MK3 now and many wanting 87 , 91 , 93 tunes and I have seen the datalogs from 87 to 93 and there is a difference , I totally change the way the knock sensor adjust and how it plays a role in the timing and VCT etc

93 by far is the way to go if you can afford the difference from 87 , even 91 is better

Tom
Like
macatron, ELCouz, scott9050 and 1 others like this.
__________________
Focus-Power: Your #1 Source for Ford Focus Speed, Tuning & Performance!

Customer Support
AIM: hpdyno
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 704-249-3745
Site: focus-power.com

Elder 1turbofocus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
macatron
Focus Enthusiast




Join Date: May 2009
Fan#: 65326
Location: Groton, CT
What I Drive: 2012 Blue Candy Focus Ti Hatchback

Posts: 350
Points 2,257, Level 28



Level Up 72% Completed



Forum Activity 4%





FF Reputation: 1
Buy-Sell-Trade Rating: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1turbofocus
With out a doubt the MK3 will make better HP/TQ , better daily driving , MPG from 93 + fuels
I have seen 100`s of datalogs of the MK3 now and many wanting 87 , 91 , 93 tunes and I have seen the datalogs from 87 to 93 and there is a difference , I totally change the way the knock sensor adjust and how it plays a role in the timing and VCT etc

93 by far is the way to go if you can afford the difference from 87 , even 91 is better

Tom
Thanks for chiming in on this, Tom! I know you are VERY knowledgeable regarding all things tune and ECU related, so hopefully this will quell further arguing about the benefits of running a higher octane fuel in the MK3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
1turbofocus
FF Affiliate




Join Date: Oct 2003
Fan#: 1123
Location: Belmont, NC
What I Drive: 2000 ZX3 / 2002 SVT Turbocharged

Posts: 29,805
Points 99,192, Level 100



Level Up 0% Completed



Forum Activity 100%





FF Reputation: 160
Buy-Sell-Trade Rating: (31)

Those that cant get 93 then 91 would be the next best , better then 87

Tom
Like
macatron likes this.
__________________
Focus-Power: Your #1 Source for Ford Focus Speed, Tuning & Performance!

Customer Support
AIM: hpdyno
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 704-249-3745
Site: focus-power.com

Elder 1turbofocus
 
41 - 60 of 110 Posts
Top