Manual vs. Automatic GVWR

[adsm08]

The autos are more in demand than a manual and they have a lot more electrics nowadays.

I noticed that too. The article I got that one from is only about 3 years old though. It was yet another auto vs. manual face off deal. I think it was on Jalopnik.

I'd take a C3 over a 6R80 any day though. About the only "Modern" auto I'd think about is the Torqshift, mostly because the darn thing is so simple.

 

[kryptonitecb]

If it fit I'd be all over a TH350 or 450, till I go that route I'll keep the manual

Sent from the road while ignoring traffic

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I'd take a C3 over a 6R80 any day though. About the only "Modern" auto I'd think about is the Torqshift, mostly because the darn thing is so simple.

A C3 as in what spawned the A4LD?

After experiancing one 3 speed automatic I wouldn't have another... they are dang hard on gas unless you have a crazy high axle gear. When it dies it will get something with OD, probably an M5OD, if there was an easy way to make a 4R70W work I would in a heartbeat. 2700rpm at 60mph moves a lot of gas... just hold 'er right up against the secondaries and cruise along.

 

[adsm08]

I drive a little less than 20 miles a day round trip. MPG isn't foremost in my mind actually. My ability to limp it where it needs to go when it's broke, and my ability to fix it quickly when it dies are my two biggest concerns. And I have had, as my DD a vehicle with a 3 speed auto, back when I was driving 60 miles a day. Filling an 18 gallon tank twice a week is not fun or cheap.


But as long as we are on the topic, if I had my pick of ANY auto trans, it would be the 350 hydromatic. That car got 12 MPG at the end, but the trans had never been apart since 1978, and she slipped a little while the fluid was low after I pulled her out of the barn. I topped it off with GumOut power steering fluid, drove it 20 miles to the shop, put a pan gasket and 4 qts of fresh Dex in it, and never had another trans issue until the day I stopped driving that car.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have had my 4R70W in my F-150 for 7 years now, it has been faultess... my Ranger will NEVER do what I have done with it nor does it have as much power.

I think it would be a pretty long lived trans in a lightweight Ranger that really isn't comfortable towing much.

 

[adsm08]

I have had my 4R70W in my F-150 for 7 years now, it has been faultess... my Ranger will NEVER do what I have done with it nor does it have as much power.

I think it would be a pretty long lived trans in a lightweight Ranger that really isn't comfortable towing much.

Oh, I'm sure it would last forever in that setup. The 4R70 is rated for enough power to twist a Ranger's frame in two.

For those that don't know, Ford's auto trans ID's tell you certain information about the transmission.

It's number of gear, trans style (FWD vs RWD) and (X*10)= torque rating. So 4R70 is a 4-speed RWD, rated to 700 ft lb peak torque.

 

[shane96ranger]

Oh, I'm sure it would last forever in that setup. The 4R70 is rated for enough power to twist a Ranger's frame in two.

For those that don't know, Ford's auto trans ID's tell you certain information about the transmission.

It's number of gear, trans style (FWD vs RWD) and (X*10)= torque rating. So 4R70 is a 4-speed RWD, rated to 700 ft lb peak torque.

And the W means wide ratio.

Sent while I should be doing something else

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Oh, I'm sure it would last forever in that setup. The 4R70 is rated for enough power to twist a Ranger's frame in two.

For those that don't know, Ford's auto trans ID's tell you certain information about the transmission.

It's number of gear, trans style (FWD vs RWD) and (X*10)= torque rating. So 4R70 is a 4-speed RWD, rated to 700 ft lb peak torque.

I have heard it is and it isn't

While there is speculation that the 70 can be multiplied by 10 to indicate the ft-lbs of torque this transmission is capable of handling including torque converter multiplication, (i.e. 700 ft-lbs of torque), there is no reliable source indicating this. In fact a Ford document stated that the 2003 "Expedition's 4R70W transmission is rated to handle up to 506 foot-pounds of torque, which provides a large performance cushion beyond the peak torque rating of Expedition's largest available engine." http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=548&press_subsection_id=423&make_id=92 . It is more plausible that the number indicates the torque handling capability in N-m, as 506 ft-lbs converts to 686 N-m which could be rounded to 700 N-m. The "70" may also refer to the transmission's torque capacity after torque converter multiplication which occurs at low rpm's when the torque converter is more "elastic". 4R70W stands for 4 gears, Rearwheeldrive, 70 is a measurement of torque and Wide gear ratio compared to the AODE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4R70W

 

[shane96ranger]

I have had my 4R70W in my F-150 for 7 years now, it has been faultess... my Ranger will NEVER do what I have done with it nor does it have as much power.

I think it would be a pretty long lived trans in a lightweight Ranger that really isn't comfortable towing much.

I love the 4R70W. I've owned two now in both my F150 and my Mounty. I concur, they are flawless. I know they are a decendent of the AOD. Ford really fixed a lot of issues with the AOD and AODE with the 4R70W. I've owned/driven many AOD/AODE vehicles, and the 4R70W shifts better, and is much more predictable.

Sent while I should be doing something else

 

[adsm08]

I have heard it is and it isn't


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4R70W

That is what I was told by the instructor while I was doing my Ford auto trans classes and I've never heard anything specific to refute it.

I would not be surprised if the number is in Nm though, because even in the US manuals I frequently find myself cursing them for giving me torque and pressure specs in metric units that I don't understand and have to go convert.

 

[shane96ranger]

I've always known it that way too Adsm. Carcraft explains it here:

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1001_4r70w_transmission_rebuild/viewall.html

Sent while I should be doing something else

 

[rusty ol ranger]

After many, many, many years of towing and hauling alot more then a Ranger should, and well over 300,000 miles my TK 5 is still going strong....something no A4LD in history could of achieved.

As for towing...an Automatic is alot more "dummy proof" then a manual is, espically for starting off on hills, BUT, a manual is alot more trustworthy, I tow a 6500lb camper with 77 F250 with a C6, makes me nervous everytime, but wouldnt think twice about tugging it all day long with 78 1 ton with a T18.

Ever wonder why Semis use manual transmissions? And even the few automatic semis on the road arnt "automatic" like we think of them, they are basically a 10 (or 13) speed with a clutch and a computer to float gears for you.....

Most Overdrive Autos ive had have been junk, my 97 Expedition went out right away, was going out when i got rid of it again (E4OD), My 94 E150 had all sorts of shifting problems (4R70W), A 94 Escort i had to put 3 trannys in after 150,000 miles...My dads 94 F250 (E4OD), went to junk at 170,000 miles....and thats not counting the many nites i spent laying under my buddys chevys changing TH400s and 700R4's....

Never had a problem out of a 3sp Auto though, But ive only had C6s and two FMX's.

IMO Manuals are definatly the way to go...

later,
Dustin

 

[Will]

I have an old Bobcat with clutch drive. I have a newer one (an ASV actually) with hydrostatics. Want to guess which is best?

You don't know how to drive a manual transmission. That's why the manual is rated lower. Ford doesn't know what you are going to do with the truck when you buy it. You are going to call me an asshole and throw things, but you don't know how to drive a manual trans. Ford knows this. If you knew how to drive it, it would have the same rating as an auto.

I'm not being mysterious here. It's a simple thing: this simultaneous gas-in clutch-out thing that you learn is bullshit. I hate riding with people that drive that way. You learn that in driver's ed, but that's not the way it's done.

Let the clutch all the way up and then apply the gas. People want a manual shift because they think it's better on gas or because they want the driving experience. They all suck at it, though. They think the clutch is there as a ramp between gears. It's not. It's a crutch because gears only come in 5 sizes.

With an auto, the torque converter is a ramp between gears. It's got clutches too, but they don't wear out because 1) they are wet clutches immersed in fluid and 2) they are on or off, not smoking along half applied.

The torque converter itself is an amazing device. A Ranger torque converter is at least a 2:1 device, which, simply put, will lower first gear in the tranny to 5.00 on a grade where the engine is at max torque. I know about this because at my other house the drive is a 28% grade and I would often be on the gas and not moving until the converter flashed and then I would be magically flying up the drive. It works in smaller bits, too, but you don't often notice them.

An auto can be much more reliable than a manual. An auto is the same technology as a log splitter. It's hydraulic. It has pistons and valves, just like a splitter. The most reliable piece of it is the converter which has hundreds of gallons of flow through it with no wear parts. You know what...I've dealt with many trannies of all types, both auto and manual. The absolute most reliable considering everything is the TH400 in my pickup. It's been behind a turbocharged diesel since 2004 taking my kids to school and ulling everything from equipment to boats. I worry that my 6.2 diesel with a turbo might fail, and I worry that I'm going to break an axle with my Detroit Locker 14-bolt with 4,000# of tongue weight on my gooseneck trailer. The one thing that never crosses my mind is that the TH400 might fail. It's maybe the best mechanical object I own. It's a little mundane having just a little stick on the column, but it's invincible.

Of course if it had failed, I would have replaced it with a 700R4 which is out of my old truck, but that is another thing.

Auto's are the real deal for anyone. If you can learn to drive a stick like I described above, there is nothing wrong with a manual.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Dad has two tractors, one has a torque converter in place of the clutch in front of an 8 speed non-synconized transmission and the other with a bigger engine in the same chassis with a dry clutch in front of they very same 8 speed.

It is amazing what the TQ tractor can do over the clutch. They demoed one at a tractor pull I was at last year. Started off with the TQ unlocked, got it moving and locked it via the lever on the steering collum, stopped halfway down the track, started off with the TQ unlocked and got the sled moving again (weightbox halfway up) flipped it into direct until it just about powered out, unlocked the TQ and it ended up spinning out just shy of a full pull. Bone stock hot off the farm 1960's Case 830 Comfort King.

I tow a 5k tractor on a 1.5k trailer with my 5.4/4R70W F-150, its basically what I got the truck for 7 years ago. I haven't had a problem yet (knocking on wood )

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I know how to drive a stick shift....cause when i was taught i got smacked in the head (by my dad) for clutch riding

I prefer a manual for the following reasons....

1- It is considerably cheaper and eaiser to replace a clutch then a transmission.
2- Downshifting on a manual actually has a use when slowing a heavy load.
3- Going down a steep grade you can select whatever gear you want to keep you at a safe speed.
4-Fun to drive factor.
5-Most modern manuals are not designed to pull a load like the old ones...use a creeper 4sp against a similar truck with a torque converter and do a comparision....youll be amazed.

It really comes down to preference, i truck solid, meshed up steel gears over fluid, pumps and friction plates.

later,
Dustin