Focus Fanatics Forum banner

61 - 80 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
4 clutches? Good god. My car behaves much better with Tom's tune, but the jury is still out on my TCM. I'm currently on the second set of clutches (changed once).

So let me get this straight, it's your second TCM vs the stock one the car came with?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


This is the first replacement from the factory installed one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
For the dual dry clutch supporters, article from 2014 - Dual-clutch transmissions: dry clutch on the way out - Getrag’s recently announced dual-clutch products all use wet clutch technology – no dry clutch in sight. source https://paultan.org/2014/03/17/dual-clutch-transmissions-dry-clutch/
If you ask me, Ford single handedly ruined dry dual clutch reputation. It had potential, but after putting a trans out with a multitude of problems, no one wants to touch them.

A real shame in my eyes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
If you ask me, Ford single handedly ruined dry dual clutch reputation. It had potential, but after putting a trans out with a multitude of problems, no one wants to touch them.

A real shame in my eyes.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using FF Mobile
I don't get it, I really don't. I understand why Tom thinks the DPS6 is the greatest thing since sliced bread: he has nothing to gain by saying otherwise, and actual money to be made by claiming it's great.

And to Tom's credit - in a world where it's your job to hack away and fine-tune software to a degree that is borderline impossible to do on a large scale - I can see how the DPS6 could be made less of a dumpster fire.

It's your defense of it that I don't get. Quite simply, a dry DCT is not a good transmission. You're right that doesn't have to be as bad as the DPS6 turned out to be, but that does not at all mean that a dry DCT is anything but garbage.

Do you really think that Ford and Ford alone has killed the idea of the dry DCT for the entire world? You know there are other car companies, right? And that they would be love to roll out a transmission that boasts impressive fuel economy while being cheap, light, and easy to work on. As demonstrated by this whole fiasco, consumers don't generally know what they're buying; they let the dealer tell them. So if any of the other companies could roll out a dry DCT that actually does what Ford said the DPS6 was supposed to do, they would and no one would care...as long as it did what they were told it would do.

But they won't. Because they can't. Because the disadvantages of a dry DCT outweigh the advantages. It's that simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I don't get it, I really don't. I understand why Tom thinks the DPS6 is the greatest thing since sliced bread: he has nothing to gain by saying otherwise, and actual money to be made by claiming it's great.

And to Tom's credit - in a world where it's your job to hack away and fine-tune software to a degree that is borderline impossible to do on a large scale - I can see how the DPS6 could be made less of a dumpster fire.

It's your defense of it that I don't get. Quite simply, a dry DCT is not a good transmission. You're right that doesn't have to be as bad as the DPS6 turned out to be, but that does not at all mean that a dry DCT is anything but garbage.

Do you really think that Ford and Ford alone has killed the idea of the dry DCT for the entire world? You know there are other car companies, right? And that they would be love to roll out a transmission that boasts impressive fuel economy while being cheap, light, and easy to work on. As demonstrated by this whole fiasco, consumers don't generally know what they're buying; they let the dealer tell them. So if any of the other companies could roll out a dry DCT that actually does what Ford said the DPS6 was supposed to do, they would and no one would care...as long as it did what they were told it would do.

But they won't. Because they can't. Because the disadvantages of a dry DCT outweigh the advantages. It's that simple.
It's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Frankly though, almost any transmission will have problems, for it's a machine that's highly tasked. That said, most aren't as troublesome as the DPS6.

Look, I now have 86k on my trans and aside from shudder, it's been problem free so far. Shudder is mainly annoying, but it largely is not gonna stop you from getting from point A to point B. Is this trans really that different from a true manual? I say no. If you ask me, the TCM failures are a far bigger problem than the stupid clutch shudder.

I'm more neutral on this transmission than you think, it's just that I'm not bitching like other people, because so far (this is key) I've had no real problems. I'm not blaming those people for being frustrated though, I'm truly not. Let's call a spade a damn spade; Ford cannot help people. I doubt a recall is gonna happen either.

Even if you don't ever have a single shudder, those clutches will wear out, just like the clutch in a manual.The exception is the DCT is more expensive to repair. Yes, this is a downside. Guess what? A manual trans is exposed to the same wear and tear as a DCT. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what a manual trans is. You may coax more mileage out of the manual, but just using it properly is wearing it.

I laugh at people who automaticaly assume Tom is only in it for money. You ever think he enjoys making these things operate more like how they should? He has more than one DCT of his own, I'd imagine shudder annoys him too.

There's a reason I bought his tune. Rather than keep bitching about shudder and doing nothing, and keep giving Ford money they don't deserve, I took a chance on what he's selling. It's not perfect, but I also am running abused 31k mile clutches. I'm not over here holding my breath that this investigation will change anything.

All this said, a tune cannot and will not save a failing TCM. If I never had to worry about that part, I'd have a lot of confidence in this trans. I've not seen a definitive answer as to whether the bastards ever figured it out.

I stand by what I've said of Ford, because they have most problematic dry DCT on the market. Even Hyundai had problems, but they made tangible software updates, and their version was not the dumpster fire this trans was/is

I don't get why people insist on trying to change my opinion. People need to stop parading their opinion as fact.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
Also, no one should have to buy a custom tune to stop/help shudder, but Ford has only made a couple changes in the right direction on software.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Look, I now have 86k on my trans and aside from shudder, it's been problem free so far.
To be clear: you're saying that aside from it not working correctly, it's been problem-free? You really can't hear how ridiculous that sounds? The bar should not be "it doesn't leave me stranded on the road" when we're talking about 10k miles on a new clutch pack!

If you ask me, the TCM failures are a far bigger problem than the stupid clutch shudder.
Except that 1.) the TCM is way cheaper to replace, and 2.) there are no widespread reports of defective TCMs assuming that you have had it replaced since late 2014 and you have the latest software.

I don't disagree that a defective TCM is big problem, as that will leave you stranded...but my point is that it appears Ford has fixed that particular issue and folks should be (generally) good as long as they have the latest rev.

Even if you don't ever have a single shudder, those clutches will wear out, just like the clutch in a manual.
I don't think I've seen anyone claim a DCT should last longer than a traditional manual - or a slushbox - but there are definitely folks (myself included) who think that a failed transmission before 100k is completely unacceptable. Your argument has no substance when folks are getting their clutch packs replaced 3-4 times before Ford no longer has an obligation to fix them under warranty.

Guess what? A manual trans is exposed to the same wear and tear as a DCT. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what a manual trans is. You may coax more mileage out of the manual, but just using it properly is wearing it.
I hate to be that guy who acts like because he's driven a manual his entire life, he's knows a thing or two about them...but I have driven a manual all my life (before the Focus) and I do know a thing or two. And I can't take anyone seriously who thinks a stick shift is less reliable by virtue of design. I have never owned a stick that showed any noticeable sign of wear before 150k and I have never had to replace one before 190k miles. I guess I'm just amazing and everyone else who drives stick is awful at it?

I laugh at people who automaticaly assume Tom is only in it for money. You ever think he enjoys making these things operate more like how they should?
Oh, I'm sure he does enjoy tweaking them. I suspect that as far as they can be tweaked, he's probably very good at it. I have admitted before that I have come around to the idea that Tom's tune can help quite a bit (I used to be one of those who kept saying that if it was so simple, Ford would have done it).

I take one issue with your statement though: "like they should". This is where you're missing the point. There is a distinct difference between how they "should" (by virtue of being a dry DCT) operate and how Ford wants them to operate. In its current form, a dry DCT will never ever ever be as reliable as a traditional manual or slushbox. Heck, a wet DCT probably won't either (statistically speaking). So good for Tom for making the DPS6 suck less...but they still suck because dry DCTs suck, and Tom can't fix the design issues inherent to the DPS6. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.

There's a reason I bought his tune. Rather than keep bitching about shudder and doing nothing, and keep giving Ford money they don't deserve, I took a chance on what he's selling.
And I think that's a good idea, truly. My brother-in-law is going to sell is 2012 immediately after his extended warranty expires in November. Furthermore, he's going to be a ******* and trade it in for pennies on the dollar. He was one of those who got stranded due to TCM issues, and then had the clutches fail catastrophically. He's done with the car. I suggested he get his new TCM, new software, and new clutch pack and give Tom's tune a go. He won't. Wrong choice, IMO.

I don't get why people insist on trying to change my opinion. People need to stop parading their opinion as fact.
This is what frustrates me about you. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but I am definitely trying to expose you to facts that, for some reason, you keep thinking are opinions. They're not. The fact is that there has never existed a dry DCT that wasn't prone to widespread issues stemming from issues with their design (though certainly 7-speeds are less prone to issues than 6-speeds, due to the 7's greater ratio coverage). The fact is that a wet DCT is inherently more reliable than a dry DCT due mitigation of the single biggest issue with a dry implementation (heat). The fact is that the DPS6 is built on the 6DCT250 platform and Ford's version suffers from poor design choices that exacerbate existing issues with the 6DCT250. The fact is that Ford made a huge mistake in trying to make the DPS6 feel like a slushbox, since that is (clearly) impossible without making the design issues worse, way faster than they would have been if they'd just let it be the DCT that it is.

Your argument only ever addresses the last point. You seem to think it's all software. While software is a key component, it's hardly the only issue with the DPS6. It's the software and the hardware that make the DPS6 suck so hard. It's that you downplay or downright ignore the hardware issues which confuses me.

Also, no one should have to buy a custom tune to stop/help shudder, but Ford has only made a couple changes in the right direction on software.
This has been addressed again and again. Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to "fix" the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid. I truly cannot imagine what kind of thinking adult would believe that either of those is the case.

What is almost certainly the the case, however, is that it's two-fold:
  1. Ford told people they were essentially buying a more fuel-efficient automatic. Test drives indicated as much. Furthermore, they never suggested to customers that they would need to change their driving habits...because let's be honest, the compact market is competitive with slim margins and sales would have dropped drastically as folks chose a similarly-priced, similarly-performing compact from someone else who didn't require them to drive differently. So, essentially, Ford lied for the better part of a decade and even if they could change the software on every car to act more like a proper DCT, they'd have opened themselves up to fraud lawsuits. Sure, in hindsight, they probably would have been better off - well, at least no worse - but we are where we are and changing the software now would only prove that they had been lying to consumers for years and covering up the fact that they'd been using transmissions they knew were dangerously unreliable.
  2. So why don't they custom-tune each car? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Ford engineers can replicate Tom's tune. I suspect they can even do a better job of it, and you certainly wouldn't have to email some dude 5 or 6 times and load it yourself. But that's crazy. The sheer amount of shop and tech hours that would take makes it a no-go if they were to do that for every single Focus and Fiesta on the road.
Here's where we are: Ford doesn't make cars anymore. Ford has given up on the DPS6. Ford has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on the same car "fixing" the DPS6, costing them millions. Ford has been caught lying about the DPS6. I don't know where the NHTSA investigation will go, but if there was a class action before Ford was caught lying, there will certainly be a class action after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
To be clear: you're saying that aside from it not working correctly, it's been problem-free? You really can't hear how ridiculous that sounds? The bar should not be "it doesn't leave me stranded on the road" when we're talking about 10k miles on a new clutch pack!


Except that 1.) the TCM is way cheaper to replace, and 2.) there are no widespread reports of defective TCMs assuming that you have had it replaced since late 2014 and you have the latest software.

I don't disagree that a defective TCM is big problem, as that will leave you stranded...but my point is that it appears Ford has fixed that particular issue and folks should be (generally) good as long as they have the latest rev.


I don't think I've seen anyone claim a DCT should last longer than a traditional manual - or a slushbox - but there are definitely folks (myself included) who think that a failed transmission before 100k is completely unacceptable. Your argument has no substance when folks are getting their clutch packs replaced 3-4 times before Ford no longer has an obligation to fix them under warranty.


I hate to be that guy who acts like because he's driven a manual his entire life, he's knows a thing or two about them...but I have driven a manual all my life (before the Focus) and I do know a thing or two. And I can't take anyone seriously who thinks a stick shift is less reliable by virtue of design. I have never owned a stick that showed any noticeable sign of wear before 150k and I have never had to replace one before 190k miles. I guess I'm just amazing and everyone else who drives stick is awful at it?


Oh, I'm sure he does enjoy tweaking them. I suspect that as far as they can be tweaked, he's probably very good at it. I have admitted before that I have come around to the idea that Tom's tune can help quite a bit (I used to be one of those who kept saying that if it was so simple, Ford would have done it).

I take one issue with your statement though: "like they should". This is where you're missing the point. There is a distinct difference between how they "should" (by virtue of being a dry DCT) operate and how Ford wants them to operate. In its current form, a dry DCT will never ever ever be as reliable as a traditional manual or slushbox. Heck, a wet DCT probably won't either (statistically speaking). So good for Tom for making the DPS6 suck less...but they still suck because dry DCTs suck, and Tom can't fix the design issues inherent to the DPS6. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.


And I think that's a good idea, truly. My brother-in-law is going to sell is 2012 immediately after his extended warranty expires in November. Furthermore, he's going to be a ******* and trade it in for pennies on the dollar. He was one of those who got stranded due to TCM issues, and then had the clutches fail catastrophically. He's done with the car. I suggested he get his new TCM, new software, and new clutch pack and give Tom's tune a go. He won't. Wrong choice, IMO.


This is what frustrates me about you. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but I am definitely trying to expose you to facts that, for some reason, you keep thinking are opinions. They're not. The fact is that there has never existed a dry DCT that wasn't prone to widespread issues stemming from issues with their design (though certainly 7-speeds are less prone to issues than 6-speeds, due to the 7's greater ratio coverage). The fact is that a wet DCT is inherently more reliable than a dry DCT due mitigation of the single biggest issue with a dry implementation (heat). The fact is that the DPS6 is built on the 6DCT250 platform and Ford's version suffers from poor design choices that exacerbate existing issues with the 6DCT250. The fact is that Ford made a huge mistake in trying to make the DPS6 feel like a slushbox, since that is (clearly) impossible without making the design issues worse, way faster than they would have been if they'd just let it be the DCT that it is.

Your argument only ever addresses the last point. You seem to think it's all software. While software is a key component, it's hardly the only issue with the DPS6. It's the software and the hardware that make the DPS6 suck so hard. It's that you downplay or downright ignore the hardware issues which confuses me.


This has been addressed again and again. Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to "fix" the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid. I truly cannot imagine what kind of thinking adult would believe that either of those is the case.

What is almost certainly the the case, however, is that it's two-fold:
  1. Ford told people they were essentially buying a more fuel-efficient automatic. Test drives indicated as much. Furthermore, they never suggested to customers that they would need to change their driving habits...because let's be honest, the compact market is competitive with slim margins and sales would have dropped drastically as folks chose a similarly-priced, similarly-performing compact from someone else who didn't require them to drive differently. So, essentially, Ford lied for the better part of a decade and even if they could change the software on every car to act more like a proper DCT, they'd have opened themselves up to fraud lawsuits. Sure, in hindsight, they probably would have been better off - well, at least no worse - but we are where we are and changing the software now would only prove that they had been lying to consumers for years and covering up the fact that they'd been using transmissions they knew were dangerously unreliable.
  2. So why don't they custom-tune each car? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Ford engineers can replicate Tom's tune. I suspect they can even do a better job of it, and you certainly wouldn't have to email some dude 5 or 6 times and load it yourself. But that's crazy. The sheer amount of shop and tech hours that would take makes it a no-go if they were to do that for every single Focus and Fiesta on the road.
Here's where we are: Ford doesn't make cars anymore. Ford has given up on the DPS6. Ford has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on the same car "fixing" the DPS6, costing them millions. Ford has been caught lying about the DPS6. I don't know where the NHTSA investigation will go, but if there was a class action before Ford was caught lying, there will certainly be a class action after.

This is the second thread where you have called a person names for disagreeing with you. You really need to grow up and fast. Just because people don't constantly whine like you do about this transmission doesn't make them anything, it makes you an idiot for not trading yours in. Sell it....move on....but please **** about it already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
To be clear: you're saying that aside from it not working correctly, it's been problem-free? You really can't hear how ridiculous that sounds? The bar should not be "it doesn't leave me stranded on the road" when we're talking about 10k miles on a new clutch pack!


Except that 1.) the TCM is way cheaper to replace, and 2.) there are no widespread reports of defective TCMs assuming that you have had it replaced since late 2014 and you have the latest software.



I don't disagree that a defective TCM is big problem, as that will leave you stranded...but my point is that it appears Ford has fixed that particular issue and folks should be (generally) good as long as they have the latest rev.





I don't think I've seen anyone claim a DCT should last longer than a traditional manual - or a slushbox - but there are definitely folks (myself included) who think that a failed transmission before 100k is completely unacceptable. Your argument has no substance when folks are getting their clutch packs replaced 3-4 times before Ford no longer has an obligation to fix them under warranty.





I hate to be that guy who acts like because he's driven a manual his entire life, he's knows a thing or two about them...but I have driven a manual all my life (before the Focus) and I do know a thing or two. And I can't take anyone seriously who thinks a stick shift is less reliable by virtue of design. I have never owned a stick that showed any noticeable sign of wear before 150k and I have never had to replace one before 190k miles. I guess I'm just amazing and everyone else who drives stick is awful at it?





Oh, I'm sure he does enjoy tweaking them. I suspect that as far as they can be tweaked, he's probably very good at it. I have admitted before that I have come around to the idea that Tom's tune can help quite a bit (I used to be one of those who kept saying that if it was so simple, Ford would have done it).



I take one issue with your statement though: "like they should". This is where you're missing the point. There is a distinct difference between how they "should" (by virtue of being a dry DCT) operate and how Ford wants them to operate. In its current form, a dry DCT will never ever ever be as reliable as a traditional manual or slushbox. Heck, a wet DCT probably won't either (statistically speaking). So good for Tom for making the DPS6 suck less...but they still suck because dry DCTs suck, and Tom can't fix the design issues inherent to the DPS6. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.





And I think that's a good idea, truly. My brother-in-law is going to sell is 2012 immediately after his extended warranty expires in November. Furthermore, he's going to be a ******* and trade it in for pennies on the dollar. He was one of those who got stranded due to TCM issues, and then had the clutches fail catastrophically. He's done with the car. I suggested he get his new TCM, new software, and new clutch pack and give Tom's tune a go. He won't. Wrong choice, IMO.





This is what frustrates me about you. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but I am definitely trying to expose you to facts that, for some reason, you keep thinking are opinions. They're not. The fact is that there has never existed a dry DCT that wasn't prone to widespread issues stemming from issues with their design (though certainly 7-speeds are less prone to issues than 6-speeds, due to the 7's greater ratio coverage). The fact is that a wet DCT is inherently more reliable than a dry DCT due mitigation of the single biggest issue with a dry implementation (heat). The fact is that the DPS6 is built on the 6DCT250 platform and Ford's version suffers from poor design choices that exacerbate existing issues with the 6DCT250. The fact is that Ford made a huge mistake in trying to make the DPS6 feel like a slushbox, since that is (clearly) impossible without making the design issues worse, way faster than they would have been if they'd just let it be the DCT that it is.



Your argument only ever addresses the last point. You seem to think it's all software. While software is a key component, it's hardly the only issue with the DPS6. It's the software and the hardware that make the DPS6 suck so hard. It's that you downplay or downright ignore the hardware issues which confuses me.





This has been addressed again and again. Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to "fix" the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid. I truly cannot imagine what kind of thinking adult would believe that either of those is the case.



What is almost certainly the the case, however, is that it's two-fold:

  1. Ford told people they were essentially buying a more fuel-efficient automatic. Test drives indicated as much. Furthermore, they never suggested to customers that they would need to change their driving habits...because let's be honest, the compact market is competitive with slim margins and sales would have dropped drastically as folks chose a similarly-priced, similarly-performing compact from someone else who didn't require them to drive differently. So, essentially, Ford lied for the better part of a decade and even if they could change the software on every car to act more like a proper DCT, they'd have opened themselves up to fraud lawsuits. Sure, in hindsight, they probably would have been better off - well, at least no worse - but we are where we are and changing the software now would only prove that they had been lying to consumers for years and covering up the fact that they'd been using transmissions they knew were dangerously unreliable.
  2. So why don't they custom-tune each car? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Ford engineers can replicate Tom's tune. I suspect they can even do a better job of it, and you certainly wouldn't have to email some dude 5 or 6 times and load it yourself. But that's crazy. The sheer amount of shop and tech hours that would take makes it a no-go if they were to do that for every single Focus and Fiesta on the road.
Here's where we are: Ford doesn't make cars anymore. Ford has given up on the DPS6. Ford has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on the same car "fixing" the DPS6, costing them millions. Ford has been caught lying about the DPS6. I don't know where the NHTSA investigation will go, but if there was a class action before Ford was caught lying, there will certainly be a class action after.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
This is the second thread where you have called a person names for disagreeing with you. You really need to grow up and fast. Just because people don't constantly whine like you do about this transmission doesn't make them anything, it makes you an idiot for not trading yours in. Sell it....move on....but please **** about it already.
Hello, my name is pot. Nice to meet you, kettle!

If you don't like it, ignore my posts. No one's making you respond. I mean, here you are, contributing nothing to the thread while I, at least, am speaking on-topic (whether you like the way I do it or not). You keep coming back because something in your personality won't let you just move along.

We both know you're going to respond because you can't help yourself. I'd encourage you respond with something helpful, but your internet rage probably won't let you. Or, more likely, you have nothing helpful to contribute.

You do you, man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I'm coming back to this because Tapatalk is being a jerk and I don't have the time right now. Stand by.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
To be clear: you're saying that aside from it not working correctly, it's been problem-free? You really can't hear how ridiculous that sounds? The bar should not be "it doesn't leave me stranded on the road" when we're talking about 10k miles on a new clutch pack!





Except that 1.) the TCM is way cheaper to replace, and 2.) there are no widespread reports of defective TCMs assuming that you have had it replaced since late 2014 and you have the latest software.



I don't disagree that a defective TCM is big problem, as that will leave you stranded...but my point is that it appears Ford has fixed that particular issue and folks should be (generally) good as long as they have the latest rev.





I don't think I've seen anyone claim a DCT should last longer than a traditional manual - or a slushbox - but there are definitely folks (myself included) who think that a failed transmission before 100k is completely unacceptable. Your argument has no substance when folks are getting their clutch packs replaced 3-4 times before Ford no longer has an obligation to fix them under warranty.





I hate to be that guy who acts like because he's driven a manual his entire life, he's knows a thing or two about them...but I have driven a manual all my life (before the Focus) and I do know a thing or two. And I can't take anyone seriously who thinks a stick shift is less reliable by virtue of design. I have never owned a stick that showed any noticeable sign of wear before 150k and I have never had to replace one before 190k miles. I guess I'm just amazing and everyone else who drives stick is awful at it?





Oh, I'm sure he does enjoy tweaking them. I suspect that as far as they can be tweaked, he's probably very good at it. I have admitted before that I have come around to the idea that Tom's tune can help quite a bit (I used to be one of those who kept saying that if it was so simple, Ford would have done it).



I take one issue with your statement though: "like they should". This is where you're missing the point. There is a distinct difference between how they "should" (by virtue of being a dry DCT) operate and how Ford wants them to operate. In its current form, a dry DCT will never ever ever be as reliable as a traditional manual or slushbox. Heck, a wet DCT probably won't either (statistically speaking). So good for Tom for making the DPS6 suck less...but they still suck because dry DCTs suck, and Tom can't fix the design issues inherent to the DPS6. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise.





And I think that's a good idea, truly. My brother-in-law is going to sell is 2012 immediately after his extended warranty expires in November. Furthermore, he's going to be a ******* and trade it in for pennies on the dollar. He was one of those who got stranded due to TCM issues, and then had the clutches fail catastrophically. He's done with the car. I suggested he get his new TCM, new software, and new clutch pack and give Tom's tune a go. He won't. Wrong choice, IMO.





This is what frustrates me about you. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but I am definitely trying to expose you to facts that, for some reason, you keep thinking are opinions. They're not. The fact is that there has never existed a dry DCT that wasn't prone to widespread issues stemming from issues with their design (though certainly 7-speeds are less prone to issues than 6-speeds, due to the 7's greater ratio coverage). The fact is that a wet DCT is inherently more reliable than a dry DCT due mitigation of the single biggest issue with a dry implementation (heat). The fact is that the DPS6 is built on the 6DCT250 platform and Ford's version suffers from poor design choices that exacerbate existing issues with the 6DCT250. The fact is that Ford made a huge mistake in trying to make the DPS6 feel like a slushbox, since that is (clearly) impossible without making the design issues worse, way faster than they would have been if they'd just let it be the DCT that it is.



Your argument only ever addresses the last point. You seem to think it's all software. While software is a key component, it's hardly the only issue with the DPS6. It's the software and the hardware that make the DPS6 suck so hard. It's that you downplay or downright ignore the hardware issues which confuses me.





This has been addressed again and again. Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to "fix" the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid. I truly cannot imagine what kind of thinking adult would believe that either of those is the case.



What is almost certainly the the case, however, is that it's two-fold:

  1. Ford told people they were essentially buying a more fuel-efficient automatic. Test drives indicated as much. Furthermore, they never suggested to customers that they would need to change their driving habits...because let's be honest, the compact market is competitive with slim margins and sales would have dropped drastically as folks chose a similarly-priced, similarly-performing compact from someone else who didn't require them to drive differently. So, essentially, Ford lied for the better part of a decade and even if they could change the software on every car to act more like a proper DCT, they'd have opened themselves up to fraud lawsuits. Sure, in hindsight, they probably would have been better off - well, at least no worse - but we are where we are and changing the software now would only prove that they had been lying to consumers for years and covering up the fact that they'd been using transmissions they knew were dangerously unreliable.
  2. So why don't they custom-tune each car? Because that's ridiculous. Of course Ford engineers can replicate Tom's tune. I suspect they can even do a better job of it, and you certainly wouldn't have to email some dude 5 or 6 times and load it yourself. But that's crazy. The sheer amount of shop and tech hours that would take makes it a no-go if they were to do that for every single Focus and Fiesta on the road.
Here's where we are: Ford doesn't make cars anymore. Ford has given up on the DPS6. Ford has spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on the same car "fixing" the DPS6, costing them millions. Ford has been caught lying about the DPS6. I don't know where the NHTSA investigation will go, but if there was a class action before Ford was caught lying, there will certainly be a class action after.
I see shudder for what it is: annoying, and may knock some mileage off clutch lifespan. Since I bought the tune, I've mostly only had occasional shudder. If it isn't persistent, I wouldn't consider it a problem. Also, I wouldn't consider shudder to be transmission failure. It's more like part failure/wear, not all out failure.

You may very well call a TCM fault a transmission failure, since it renders the trans useless. Many 12-14 MY TCM failures occured below 100k, this is true. I've had a couple loss of power days both a month apart, but I obviously have no way to prove the TCM is causing it, and my car is a 2016. About a month ago I left a stop and it took a couple seconds to get power. My tach needle basically froze, and then the car downshifted and went, like it didn't register I was pressing the gas.

I didn't expect this from a 2016 car. It's possible a fuel pump is going, but again, no way to prove it. I also had a wonky shift leaving a stop not much longer after. Prompted me to go WTF. This is why I'm telling you I'm not as positive about it as you think. I've told myself many times, my opinion of this trans may change the longer I own it. We will see. Then a month later the engine just felt plain weak. Plus it also didn't seem to register when I put the car in reverse. Lack of throttle response.

I don't think the shudder is 100% software, but I also don't think it's far off either. I think heat plays a part, although, I think worn clutches just can't manage the heat either. Someone else suggested this, and it makes sense. I also don't know if LuK is any good as far as their clutch material. If they aren't, it makes sense that the software promotes shudder so easily. I'd love to put new clutches in my car and retune to see what it does, but I'm out of warranty, so I'm hesitant. The wild range in price on the repair is also not encouraging. I'd want to shop different dealers for quotes. However the fact is, if I want to keep thing until it dies like I'm hoping, eventually my clutches are gonna go anyway.

Also, I never once said a manual is less reliable than a DCT. Either I insinuated that and didn't mean to, or you are putting words in my mouth, which people have already done to me over the internet about this trans. A manual is probably more reliable on clutches to a degree, since you can control it better, but a few people's comments seem to suggest very similar mileage to a manual. There are too many variables when it comes to clutch life.

Also, I took no issue with your response, until you called me a moron. Clearly Ford (and also Hyundai early on with their DCT) tried to program it like an auto but without the shudder, and failed to do so. Then it was sent to market because Ford said screw it. This is my interpretation of what happened. I don't see how the hell you can call me a moron when it's blatantly obvious that something is wrong with the software. There is only 2 options: either Ford knows this or they don't, it's that simple. I'm betting on option 1.

Hyundai also told people they were driving their cars wrong. Clearly the auto industry in general has a problem with ethics. Then you have customers causing issues with how stubborn they are about products they want to buy. None of these driving changes are major, but they will sway drivers, wow. Humans are so damn fickle. It's a dry DCT.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Also, I took no issue with your response, until you called me a moron.
I never explicitly called you a moron. I said: "Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to 'fix' the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid."

Now, if you believe either of those two things, then yeah, I guess I was calling you (and anyone who agrees) a moron.

In hindsight, "moron" is a bit harsh, though. If a person believes the only thing that needs fixing on the DPS6 is software - and that Ford engineers are too dumb, or that Ford would rather hemorrhage money than implement a fix they already have - I guess that person would be naïve beyond what I would have thought was reasonable in an adult who is able to think objectively about the world.

And if a person thinks that software is only part of the problem (the other part being hardware and/or design), then we agree that the DPS6 is a garbage transmission. One should not be able to say with a straight face that the DPS6 is a good transmission while acknowledging that it has serious flaws in both hardware and software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I never explicitly called you a moron. I said: "Only a moron would believe that Ford refuses to 'fix' the software out of sheer stubbornness or that they're simply too stupid."

Now, if you believe either of those two things, then yeah, I guess I was calling you (and anyone who agrees) a moron.

In hindsight, "moron" is a bit harsh, though. If a person believes the only thing that needs fixing on the DPS6 is software - and that Ford engineers are too dumb, or that Ford would rather hemorrhage money than implement a fix they already have - I guess that person would be naïve beyond what I would have thought was reasonable in an adult who is able to think objectively about the world.

And if a person thinks that software is only part of the problem (the other part being hardware and/or design), then we agree that the DPS6 is a garbage transmission. One should not be able to say with a straight face that the DPS6 is a good transmission while acknowledging that it has serious flaws in both hardware and software.
I'm making Ford put new clutches in mine free, thanks to the extension, and reflashing the tune. If shudder doesn't come back in 15-20k miles, I'm calling it a software problem 95%

Maybe Ford couldn't figure out how to make it shift like a true auto without shudder. Is this unreasonable?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
I'm making Ford put new clutches in mine free, thanks to the extension, and reflashing the tune. If shudder doesn't come back in 15-20k miles, I'm calling it a software problem 95%
15-20k miles is irrelevant. The whole point in claiming the transmission is "good" is that it should last as long as any other transmission. Despite what you think, a manual driven by a person who knows how to drive a manual, under "normal" conditions (city and highway driving, not racing or something like that), and without some random defect that causes it to fail prematurely, should absolutely last at least 100k miles before showing significant signs of clutch degradation. So come back in 100k miles and let us know if the shudder is actually gone.

Maybe Ford couldn't figure out how to make it shift like a true auto without shudder. Is this unreasonable?
Yes, it's unreasonable to think that an entire engineering team for a huge, multinational car manufacturer could not figure out how to fine-tune their own transmission software while some random guy in North Carolina could. Impossible? Of course not. It's just extremely unlikely to the point of being an unreasonable assumption when other explanations are simpler and make far more sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
508 Posts
I'm making Ford put new clutches in mine free, thanks to the extension, and reflashing the tune. If shudder doesn't come back in 15-20k miles, I'm calling it a software problem 95%

Maybe Ford couldn't figure out how to make it shift like a true auto without shudder. Is this unreasonable?
There's already a TSB out on how the seals fail and the friction plates get contaminated with fluid, and you still want to call it a software problem? Not that I'm ruling out software problems either, but no software is going to sort out faulty design and materials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
There's already a TSB out on how the seals fail and the friction plates get contaminated with fluid, and you still want to call it a software problem? Not that I'm ruling out software problems either, but no software is going to sort out faulty design and materials.
Ford extended the warranty out for wet shudder. That's what 14M01 is for to begin with.

Dry shudder isn't even an issue to Ford. Why? Them give me a lifetime warranty since it keeps coming back.

Read between the lines friend. They don't even think it's a problem.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
There's already a TSB out on how the seals fail and the friction plates get contaminated with fluid, and you still want to call it a software problem? Not that I'm ruling out software problems either, but no software is going to sort out faulty design and materials.
To be fair, I think Ford has addressed the hardware issues as far as they can. They revised the input shaft seals, made TCMs without the cracked solder issue, and began manufacturing the clutch plates out of a different material.

My point is that the DPS6 is a flawed design altogether. Dry DCTs are far from robust, and Ford managed to design one that ignores the flaws inherent to the very nature of a dry DCT.

Read between the lines friend. They don't even think it's a problem.
Or, more likely, they did a cost-benefit analysis and determined that the cost of implementing the software fix (which is not a simple reflash, but essentially creating a customized tune for every problematic DPS6) would not only be massive, but also largely unsuccessful given that the problems with the DPS6 will almost certainly manifest themselves again eventually (albeit perhaps with longer life between clutch packs).

It all comes down to the money. Ford gambled and lost. They're trying to avoid losing even more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
It all comes down to the money. Ford gambled and lost. They're trying to avoid losing even more.
I agree. They will do whatever costs them the least. Despite them saying they did the extension independently, I don't believe a word Ford says at this point. They're essentially saying cars with replaced parts won't need the new hardware/software. We've seen otherwise.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
15-20k miles is irrelevant. The whole point in claiming the transmission is "good" is that it should last as long as any other transmission. Despite what you think, a manual driven by a person who knows how to drive a manual, under "normal" conditions (city and highway driving, not racing or something like that), and without some random defect that causes it to fail prematurely, should absolutely last at least 100k miles before showing significant signs of clutch degradation. So come back in 100k miles and let us know if the shudder is actually gone.


Yes, it's unreasonable to think that an entire engineering team for a huge, multinational car manufacturer could not figure out how to fine-tune their own transmission software while some random guy in North Carolina could. Impossible? Of course not. It's just extremely unlikely to the point of being an unreasonable assumption when other explanations are simpler and make far more sense.
I don't see how it's irrelevant when most people see their clutch shudder come screaming back anywhere between 10-20k miles. Then it just continues to get worse, and very quickly too. I had some god awful shudder last summer. Not so this year. I get what you're saying, and yes, what you say about 100k miles is true. However it sounds to me (from your tone) like you get the idea that I think a manual is inferior to a DCT. Not at all how I feel.

So say I tune it early, and I don't have shudder for 30k or more miles, then it comes back around 100k like you say. Then what, we say there's a hardware issue, right? I mean something has to explain it other than chanting "design flaw/poor design". My issue with this is it doesn't tell us what it is about the design that leads to the issue. Heat? Possible. Failing TCM ruining the clutch? Also possible.

I don't know man, but I'm certainly not saying this trans is the best thing since sliced bread, because it's not. I just wonder how things might be different had they not tried so hard to make this thing like a TC box.

We will see. The car is set to be seen on Saturday the 31st.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
61 - 80 of 84 Posts
Top