Think the 10 speeds are fixed yet?

[MAV]

My wife's 2020 Explorer ST shifts great under acceleration, but feels like it's going to fall out any other time. It constantly searches for the right gear in traffic, clunks when decelerating, and generally feels like it could break or burn up at any time. I hate it.

I've tried clearing the KAM, resetting the TCM, and all that, and the learning process brings it right back to the description above. I am hoping the Raptor's 10R60 is much better.

Sponsored

 

[CB750F]

My wife's 2020 Explorer ST shifts great under acceleration, but feels like it's going to fall out any other time. It constantly searches for the right gear in traffic, clunks when decelerating, and generally feels like it could break or burn up at any time. I hate it.

I've tried clearing the KAM, resetting the TCM, and all that, and the learning process brings it right back to the description above. I am hoping the Raptor's 10R60 is much better.

I have a 2020 Ranger & brought it in for the latest TSB about 1 month ago.
My issue before the TSB was downshifting felt like I was getting hit
from the back, choppy downshifts.
After TSB, very smooth shifting.
So far all good, love the truck.

 

[Blahx]

Unless Ford changed things, the 60 stands for 600lbft of torque. It's got plenty of strength to handle the Raptor.

600 nm, not torque.
Kinda makes me question what is really in this, they offer a tune, that brings torque well north of what the 10R60 is rated for. (based on available info)

 

[pablo94sc]

600 nm, not torque.
Kinda makes me question what is really in this, they offer a tune, that brings torque well north of what the 10R60 is rated for. (based on available info)

You sure it's nm? If it's 600nm, then they've pushed the truck 126nm past the transmission's rating with the tune. That really doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Lion77]

I've yet to find a SINGLE actual source (technical drawing or specification from Ford) on the spec being in nm. What makes no sense to me about that is they specify the engine power and torque in English units for US sold trucks...why would they specify the trans input torque rating in nm?

Ford may be a global company, however they are a US company first and that is where the bulk of their sales is, domestic. Makes a lot more sense to me that the trans input torque rating is 600 lb-ft max vs. 600nm.

Why? Ford Performance offers their Pro Cal upgrade pushing 536 lb-ft of torque. So why would they offer that with their own 36k / 3yr warranty and expect to not have customers frying torque locks left and right?

36k is a lot of miles to run a transmission nearly 100 lb-ft past it's max torque and not have any issues...and not expect significant number of failures. On top of that, an input torque rating doesn't allow for any increase in engine power output with newer models over time.

Let's not forget that Ford Performance is stamped on the Ranger Raptors, both in the engine bay and on the sills, they literally developed the Raptor variants, so it would seem that the 10R60 should be able to reliable handle at least 536lb-ft of input torque as per Ford Performance offering their Pro Cal upgrade for their own HiPo truck (Raptors, all of them).

So, if someone wants to make the argument that Ford Performance is selling Pro Cal upgrades for their own truck variants that will destroy the 10R60's....other possibilities exist that there is an abnormally high overcapacity margin build into the unit, like 33% (2/3 derated use) etc. Whatever the case, it seems to me that the 10R60 should handle at least reliably handle the torque output of the Pro Cal @ 536 lb-ft.

 

[Lion77]

Some more food for thought:

How Ford Squeezed 1,050 Lb-Ft Out of Its Power Stroke Diesel

2023-2024 F250 & F350 6.7L Complete Transmissions

If the 10Rxxx transmission naming includes an input torque spec in nm after the R, then how does this work out for a factory production vehicle:

Power Stroke 6.7L output is not up to 1,050 lb-ft

1400nm = 1032.5 lb-ft

So, I guess they are producing heavy duty diesel trucks with transmissions that are not EVEN rated for the stock engines torque output.... clearly the numbering after the R either has NOTHING to do with torque ratings (could be a bell housing size spec or something else) or it's in lb-ft.

Or like GM, the name is akin to the expected input torque in a given application. So, during development, a given model is paired with vehicle x that is expected to produce 200 lb-ft of torque, so the transmission for that vehicle with its specific ratios is 10R200, but that same transmission put into another model, with differing ratios, might be 10R225 and has nothing to do with the unit's actual limits, but rather it's application.

Lots of possibilities, but nothing official from Ford that I can find, other threads have same issue. No actual documentation, just speculations based on word of mouth.

 

[Lion77]

Ford 4R100 Transmission - Monster Transmission - Monster Transmission

Makings of a Bulletproof 4R100 Transmission - Gearstar

Transmission input torque ratings would be in lb-ft, not nm even IF that was it's rated torque. So 10R60 would be rated for 600 lb-ft input torque if that's even it's meaning.

Stock 3.0L produces 430 lb-ft, or 71.6% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So, there's a 28.4% capacity margin.

Pro Cal produces up to 536 lb-ft, or 89.3% of the 10R60's maximum rated input torque. So, there's a 10.7% capacity margin.

The rated input torque is the maximum torque the transmission was rated to handle and still meet its expected service life.

So, the 10R60 is designed to handle up to 600 lb-ft of torque and meet its severe duty conditions with an expected lifespan of 150,000 miles given proper maintenance.

Clearly it will last longer if you're not driving under server service conditions every day. It will also last longer if you're not operating at the maximum rated input torque and even with a Pro Cal upgrade on a Ranger Raptor, were still 10% below its rated input torque.

I think this should put to bed the input torque rating question, at least that's it's not in nm. Also, again why would Ford rate the engine torque output in lb-ft and then rate the transmission input torque in nm? None of that makes any sense.

Running at part at its designed rating means you should get its fully rated service life. If your de-rate, you get a much higher service life the more your de-rate.

Either way, I think we can at least say none of their transmission torque ratings are rated in newton meters.

 

[Awirez]

Unless there is a source for the 10R60 that says otherwise, the sources I have found say newton meters.

Gears Magazine - It's a Family Affair - 10R140, 10R80, and 10R60; The Same But Different

Ford–GM 10-speed automatic transmission - Wikipedia

That's not to say that Ford does not have undocumented information indicating that there are internals to increase the input torque capacity to higher values, i.e. RR.

It would seem internals make a lot of difference.

RSA 10r60 Crate Transmission (2020-2023 Explorer ST) - AED Racing

The 10-Second Explorer ST Build Recipe

 

[superj]

I wouldn't cite wikipedia as a trustworthy source. Or some magazine if they arent citing a ford tech sheet.

I didnt open the link just fyi

 

[Lion77]

I see where you're making the argument, but the body of evidence really conflicts with the math and all other cases of Ford Truck transmissions, which have been understood to be specified in lb-ft input torque ratings for decades.

We may have to agree to disagree on this and that's fine. Whatever the case is, Ford Performance certainly thinks the 10R60 is within its designed limits with the 3.0L making 536 lb-ft of output torque and that was really the point of this thread it try and hash that out.

I'm of the opinion that the sources claiming nm are not highly reliable or accurate and they go against historical precedent and even the example of the F-350 completely stock as the latest gen 6.7L Power Stroke would be putting out more torque than the maximum input torque rating on the 10R140.

It just doesn't add up to me. So, we have conflicting information, and the majority of sources cite lb-ft and the math makes a lot more sense. Additionally, Ford Performance is saying it's well tested for durability, both engine and driveline. So, the sources claiming nm really seem to defy all that and body of evidence in my mind.

Sponsored