Mustang & Camaro To Use Same 10-Speed Automatic

[Rogue One]

http://www.carscoops.com/2016/07/mustan ... speed.html

Starting next year, two of the automotive world's biggest rivals & icons are set to share the same transmission, though with different control setups.

While this wouldn't mark the first time GM and Ford have worked together on such a project, the likes of the Mustang and the Camaro do tend to stir up different emotions than say the Fusion vs the Malibu, or the Escape vs the Equinox, which use jointly developed 6-speed automatics.

"It is surprising," said Gale Halderman, responsible for the exterior of the first Mustang. "Back in my time, we couldn't even talk to anybody from GM."

Now, with the 2017 Camaro ZL1 being the first of eight vehicles set to receive GM's 10-speed Hydra-Matic transmission, certain versions of the Mustang are expected to get the same gearbox for 2018, according to Autonews.

This transmission, as well as a nine-speed automatic for front-wheel-drive models, was jointly developed by Ford & GM (starting in 2013) - the former will offer the 10-speed one on the 2017 F-150 this fall, while GM is expected to use it on full-size pickups come 2017.

Despite some internal components being identical, customers won't necessarily notice similarities between how the Mustang and the Camaro (or F-150 & Silverado) change gears.

"We will each use our own control software to ensure that each transmission is carefully matched to the individual, brand-specific vehicle DNA for each company," said Craig Renneker, Ford's chief engineer of transmission and driveline components, back when the automakers announced their collaboration in 2013.

Some think that because of the huge capital costs of today's automotive industry, working together could be viewed as a necessity.

"You look at the overall cost, and why duplicate that?" stated Devin Lindsay, powertrain engineer with IHS Automotive. "Imagine the amount of time it frees up at the engineering level. That allows them to use resources in other areas. You may want to collaborate on some things, but there are others that are more of the secret sauce that differentiates you with the buyer."

How do you feel about Ford & GM collaborating when it comes to their muscle cars?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yup. They'll probably use not only different control software, but hardware as well.

Personally, I don't really care if they share an automatic. If I ever get either one of the vehicles, it'll be in a stick

[Bubba1]

^ I guess with another component the Camaro shares with a mustang means we can expect more self inflicted Camaro crashes at Cars & Coffee Car shows???

[ArmedAviator]

Still no dual clutch gearbox.....shame.

[centralcoaster33]

10 Gears! Wow. Weren't some early auto's just 3? What ever happened to the "power band"? With all the new technology, the power band could be growing, but with all the unreasonable emissions requirements it is actually shrinking. I guess these muscle cars will hit max torque at 2K, redline at 3k, and the exhaust smells like a rainforest? Why not dump $$ into the design of a CVT if you need so many gears? Maybe these actually have 4 gears of overdrive and that makes for a top speed off 280MPH from the factory? That would make me happier, but I doubt that is the case. Perhaps one uses even gears on weekdays and odd gears on weekends?

This news of technological advancement just makes me grumpy, and that doesn't seem right. I think I need another coffee (maybe decaf?).

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Dual clutch gearboxes have their ups and downs. I'm not really surprised they (ford and GM) haven't made the leap yet. GM is developing a CVT although it wont be used in anything fun or powerful. They just don't seem to handle abuse as well as traditional automatics.

10 Gears! Wow. Weren't some early auto's just 3? What ever happened to the "power band"?

Actually there were 2 speeds early on. "Powerglide".
Power band simply refers to the torque curve the engine puts out. If its smooth and flat, you don't necessarily need the gears like you would if it was short and peaky, but it still helps. More gears allows you to take advantage of lower gear torque more often than a lesser geared transmission. It also (and this is the big one) provides better fuel economy. You can cruise at a lower RPM, thus consume less fuel.

Torque curves ARE actually getting better/smoother, thanks in large part to variable valve timing...

Maybe these actually have 4 gears of overdrive and that makes for a top speed of 280MPH from the factory?

4 overdrives isn't a bad guess.
Just because its geared to go 280mph, doesn't mean you'll actually get there though

[centralcoaster33]

Yup, that's the gist of my complaint. The power band is getting better, yet it's not being used because of the fuel economy/ emissions restrictions (which I lump together as they are both environmental goals with political deadlines attached). It's not being used for more power and it's not being used for more speed. It's being geared into the least gas using, exhaust creating range needed for forward motion. That's fine for some cars, but weren't we talking about Camaro's and Mustangs? 10 gears is a lot to keep track of if you were paddle shifting and trying to have fun. It's also (imho) adding a good amount of complexity for the purpose of delivering efficiency which just seems to me like it must have some sort of diminishing returns. Is a 12 speed next? Where is the line drawn? Hence my contemplating CVT's.

So, we have better cars, with more gears than ever to choose from, with larger and smoother powerbands... and I'm trying to complain? Hmmm. I realize you might not have access to this stuff when purchasing from the dealership, the government requires a lot in the current black boxes. But a DIY owner and enthusiast can 'uncork' the awesomeness, use the full power band, remove rev and speed limiters, tune and reprogram... then maybe 280?

Complaints withdrawn. I'll work with what I get. As you were Mr. Technological Advancements!

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Just get the damn 6MT.

[Bubba1]

^ fwiw, I had a '65 Corvair with the 2 speed powerglide transmission. (with the ol' "knucklebuster" dash mounted shifter that only baby boomers'll understand). It worked great, never a problem. The problem with these modern complex double digit gear dual clutch technological terror automatic transmissions that shift in milliseconds (big effing deal) that people rave about is they don't think about what it's gonna cost to fix/replace one post warranty. I'm with James. Gimme a 6MT.

[centralcoaster33]

To clarify, I don't refer to you (anybody that is reading this) as Mr. Technological Advancements. That would be snarky. I am addressing technological advancements, personified. To which I say 'carry on', or 'as you were', figuratively and without sarcasm.

I saw pictures of the Powerglide. Someone mated one up to an electric motor. That looked pretty smart. I believe the Telsa Roadster has two forward gears. Makes sense, electric motors have torque all over the place!

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm all over multiple overdrive. What I'm not all over is tons of gears to get there.

My LS8 makes 290 ft-lb peak, with 220+ available all over the tach. It has 4 gears plus one OD, and I would LOVE another OD. It has plenty of torque for 80mph cruise at under 2k RPM. I have no problem imagining 30+mpg at 80mph with a need to drop maybe a single gear to pass on hills with just one more overdrive gear. Out of a V8. But, then again, my car isn't a McDonalds-devouring lardass like everything being built these days, so maybe that's an unfair benchmark.

The thing is, when driving in manumatic mode, I generally use 1st, third, and fifth, or second, fourth and fifth, depending on conditions and needs. I rarely need all 5 gears. Hell, sometimes I just use 3rd and 5th, particularly in heavy freeway congestion.
Now, I know you're thinking "BS, MoD, you can't skip-shift a slushbox." And you're right. What I'm really doing is just moving through them quicker than they can really be used. THAT is my big complaint about all these too-many-speed autos: They're direct sequential ONLY. The reason there's no good programming for the horrid ZF 9 speed? It has to shift a ton to make use of every single gear in the box. But these are autos: they use planetaries and clutchpacks behind a torque converter. There's NO DAMN REASON why they can't skipshift. If a 10 speed auto only used the gears it needed, and simply used the increased ratio selection to optimize for conditions (like a split-rear semi truck), it would be a really great technology. But right now it's like buying a coat for each season and then wearing them all at once. The shift logic should PREFER skip-shifting. Use only the most optimal ratio for any given time and avoid the rest. THAT is efficiency.

As with a lot of recent automotive technologies (I'm looking at you, hybrid-electric) 7+ speed automatics are a neat hardware development that's not being utilized anywhere near correctly in actual application.

Pickups are an especially appealing place to have 10-14 gears but only use 5-7 of them in any given situation. Unloaded? Loaded? Towing? Transporting 6 adults? Bed full of compost? Each will have a different set of ideal ratios for optimal performance and efficiency (and make no mistake; they are the same thing--more performance with the same power is more efficient).

So, do I think 9 speed ZF Chyrlser products are garbage and a 10AT in the Mustaro is stupid? Absolutely.
Do I want more gears to optimize the power my car already has where appropriate? Hell yes.

So I guess what I really need to do is swap a 7MT Corvette gearbox into the LS8, and then I can have my skip-shifting (voluntary--damn lockout removed, of course), multi-overdrive, optimal-ratio goodness without waiting for engineers to learn how to program a stupid computer.

[Desert Rat]

performance cars need manuals.

[Buzzman]

10 speeds. Seriously? Add two more and you have a CVT. Ridiculous.

One of my early cars was a '65 Chevy 4 door Biscayne. Bench seats and a one speaker am radio.
Had a 2 speed powerglide transmission, and a 230 inch straight six.
Didn't need ten speeds then, and don't need it now.

[float_6969]

As for the original question about GM and Ford working together, IDGAF. American car manufacturers need every advantage they can get, and if collaborating gets the costs down, then go for it. I'm not even sure why it's a thing. I'm pretty sure EVERY Japanese manufacturer has collaborated with another manufacturer at some point, right?

As for the crazy-number-of-gears-auto's, I don't blame the manufacturers at all. I'm 100% sure that if the government weren't involved, this stuff wouldn't exist. I can only imagine how challenging building a fun car that gets good mileage and meets emission standards must be. Another issue is in HOW it has to meet emission standards. They can't just build a vehicle that hits the emission standards in normal driving situations. It has to do it on the government test cycle, which is quite arguably NOT a representation of real world driving. In fact, it's so different from normal driving, it allowed VW to program in their little "bug" to switch maps because the cycle is so odd that the computer could easily see it was being tested.

So for what MoD said, I have to think that what you're contemplating has been thought of, but I'll get money they can't hit the numbers they have to on the government test cycle doing that, and so the 80-bazillion shifts have to stay. Unless they want to try an pull a VW and have it shift differently on the government test cycle vs. on the street. We all know how that went over for VW though,

Basically, the government ruins everything... to keep us safe.... from ourselves.... [/libertarian rant]

[Jesda]

I didnt like the 3-speed in my Sentra or my Saab.

In the Sentra it screamed on the highway and in the Saab I wanted more grunt down low before the turbo spooled up. It was, however, nice cruising at higher revs on the highway because it was always ready to go for passing. It was a 4 that moved like a 6.

[MinisterofDOOM]

It was, however, nice cruising at higher revs on the highway because it was always ready to go for passing. It was a 4 that moved like a 6.

That's why I'll never be a believer in the turbo-four as the valid alternative to all other formats it's being awkardly shoehorned as these days. The Saab is awesome, and I'm certainly not taking a pot shot at it, but more cylinders will always scale better across the rev range than fewer at the same displacement. 2.5-4.0 liter V8s with various boost arrangements are the way to go. Lots of torque down low, lots of response up top. Yes, it's vastly more complicated and costly, but you also get to use the same engine design across all vehicles without dragging your top-tier stuff down in the muck. Rather, you elevate the entry stuff while still allowing real cars for adults at the high end. Rather than CT6s with turbo fours, I want to see ATSs with 2-liter V8s and sequential snails. Fuel economy, power, refinement, responsiveness, emissions control (cylinder deactivation) and no need for seventyjillion gears.

I don't want to have to cruise at high RPM for passing power. I want power from 1000rpm to 8000rpm.

[Jesda]

I don't want to have to cruise at high RPM for passing power. I want power from 1000rpm to 8000rpm.

Yeah but we're talking about tech that's been slowly refined by the Swedes since the 70s. That's the way it was with the engineering capability they had and for its time it was great.

These days, a turbo 4 or turbo 5 will pull harder than my V8 with gobs of torque down low. You no longer have to sit and wait for it to spool.

[float_6969]

Yea, modern turbo tech is pretty amazing. I'm STILL amazed at the amount of low-end/off boost torque I'm getting out of a frigging 70mm turbo. (I have an EFR 7064 on my CA18). And there's still advancement to be implemented right on the horizon to improve the responsiveness and lower spool RPM's even further.

[Bubba1]

[
I don't want to have to cruise at high RPM for passing power. I want power from 1000rpm to 8000rpm.

q

I guess you haven't driven an Honda S2K. they're quite fun at high rpm, Though I totally understand the desire for low end grunt.

Yeah but we're talking about tech that's been slowly refined by the Swedes since the 70s. That's the way it was with the engineering capability they had and for its time it was great.

.

Those old Saab 900 Turbo's were surprisingly refined when they came out. Great cars in their day

[PapaSmurf2k3]

\. I'm STILL amazed at the amount of low-end/off boost torque I'm getting out of a frigging 70mm turbo. (I have an EFR 7064 on my CA18).

Oh damn I didn't know you were running an EFR! That's the baddest boy on the block. I'd have one if they made one in my flange style.

[float_6969]

Yea, I'm happy with it. I would have used a smaller turbo model, but between the flange on my manifold, and where it places the turbo, I was limited in my choices.