2016 Taco

I never understand people's obsession with those 8spds... they are not very reliable at the moment and they just can't gear them right. Almost every vehicle I have driven or heard about using the 8spd+ gear boxes always seems like it has an extra gear or two that it has no idea to deal with; or it just hunts gears all the time because they aren't ratio'd properly.

I'd rather have a good 6spd vs. a poorly ratio'd 8spd with queestionable reliability any day.

The ZF 8-speed is damn near bulletproof. It's a proven design that has been used on many different cars.

The 8-speed in my GC is set up with terrific ratios. I didn't think I'd like an 8-speed automatic, but it actually works very well and doesn't hunt at all.
As time marches on, we'll obviously see more ratios/speeds in conventional automatics, not less. Hell, my 4th gen was a 2004 and had a 4-speed automatic. Now you can't buy a Toyota with less than 5 speeds. Soon, it will be 6 speeds at the minimum. And yes, eventually I'm quite sure they'll hop on the bandwagon and get up to 8-speeds and/or 9-speeds as well. The real question is where's the limit? At what point do you get diminishing returns? Does 10-speed automatic makes sense? 12-speed? LOL
 
Last edited:
My wife's Mercedes c300 has a 7-speed. The transmission has been reliable and it never hunts gears.


Up until just recently, Mercedes had nothing more than a 7-speed transmission in any of their vehicles. Now they're moving to 8-speed transmissions, which I think is a good thing because the 7-speed hasn't been all that reliable for Mercedes, despite your wife's not having any issues.
 
The ZF 8-speed is damn near bulletproof. It's a proven design that has been used on many different cars.

That's good to hear. As you said, lots of different vehicles are using that ZF transmission.

Does 10-speed automatic makes sense?

Ford and GM think it does. They are working together on 9 and 10 speed transmissions. Ford is expected to put a 10-speed in the 2017 F-150.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20141124/RETAIL/141129943/ford-f-150-rivals:-lets-rumble

Ford F150 Will Soon Have a 10 Speed Automatic Transmission - Torque News
 
What I mean by hunting for gears is needing to noticeably drop multiple gears to gain power and/or hurry through gears noticeably.

“While its nice to see the revs under 2000 rpm at 70 mph and the accompanying fuel economy, downshifting to pass becomes a chore—to get to the real power, you have to drop four gears.”

Was not an uncommon complaint of the ISF when the 8spd first came out not to mention that similar reactions appear in other vehicles that have such high gear transmissions; the vehicle isn't able to switch through 4 gears fast enough to make it feel like a simple downshift for extra grunt.

As for reliability, they seem to have held up okay for the most part; but I do see issues popping up in various brands that use them. While not completely indicative of design flaws (though I have heard some BMW issues with them through other technicians, but then again its BMW... yeah...); I'm am not going to write them off as outliers either since many manufacturers just tweak this unit for their vehicles these days.

Like I said, most every one I drove made me wonder why it couldn't be done with a 6 or 7spd gear box. I think after a certain point you might as well just make one giant spiral cone gear with a ramping drive like a glorified CVT at least it'd be consistent.
 
Last edited:
What I mean by hunting for gears is needing to noticeably drop multiple gears to gain power and/or hurry through gears noticeably.

“While its nice to see the revs under 2000 rpm at 70 mph and the accompanying fuel economy, downshifting to pass becomes a chore—to get to the real power, you have to drop four gears.”

Was not an uncommon complaint of the ISF when the 8spd first came out not to mention that similar reactions appear in other vehicles that have such high gear transmissions; the vehicle isn't able to switch through 4 gears fast enough to make it feel like a simple downshift for extra grunt.

As for reliability, they seem to have held up okay for the most part; but I do see issues popping up in various brands that use them. While not completely indicative of design flaws (though I have heard some BMW issues with them through other technicians, but then again its BMW... yeah...); I'm am not going to write them off as outliers either since many manufacturers just tweak this unit for their vehicles these days.

Like I said, most every one I drove made me wonder why it couldn't be done with a 6 or 7spd gear box. I think after a certain point you might as well just make one giant spiral cone gear with a ramping drive like a glorified CVT at least it'd be consistent.


My experience with an 8-speed automatic in a fatpig Jeep (nearly 5000 lbs) with a modestly powered V6 engine has been very good overall. Thanks solely to the transmission, the Jeep feels A LOT more powerful than the prior model year that used the old transmission. The V6 8-speed combo on the new GC is actually 2 tenth quicker to 60 mph than last year's Hemi V8 engine. That says a lot about the performance gains from the 8-speed, but it does nothing to address concerns about gear hunting.

All I can tell you is that they did a great job choosing ratios and tuning the transmission to shift in a way that isn't annoying at all and doesn't require the constant back-and-forth gear changes that you'd typically get on a mountain road or driving up a long hill. Because the ratios are so tight, an 8 to 7 downshift is almost imperceptible in most situations. Same for a 7 to 6 downshift. You can feel them, but just barely. Same with the sound....it's audible, but again--just barely.

Now if I'm cruising along on the highway in 8th gear and I drop the pedal to the floor, the transmission will downshift several gears. I'd have to pay closer attention next time, but I'm thinking from 8 to 5 or possible from 8 to 4, depending upon my road speed. There is a slight delay during the kickdown, but I don't think it's any longer than other automatic transmissions. Unless you're really gassing it, downshifting will usually happen one gear at a time and will hardly be noticeable. My dashboard gives me a digital readout of the gear I'm in at all times, so that's obviously the easiest way to see which gear I'm in or to determine if the transmission shifted up or down. Actually, I find myself doing that all the time--I'll glance at the gear indicator to see if the transmission shifted when it's not obvious from feel or sound.

Anyway, I don't want to write a book here, so I'll just say that an 8-speed automatic can be awesome if it's done correctly. I'm sure it can also be super annoying when it's not. One surprising thing I noticed about my vehicle is that the RPMs aren't nearly as low at highway cruising speeds as I thought they would be when in 8th gear.
 
Ford and GM think it does. They are working together on 9 and 10 speed transmissions. Ford is expected to put a 10-speed in the 2017 F-150.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20141124/RETAIL/141129943/ford-f-150-rivals:-lets-rumble

Ford F150 Will Soon Have a 10 Speed Automatic Transmission - Torque News

Yup, I read about that 10-speed. I wondered if it would stay as a truck application or if we'd start to see 10-speed autos in cars too.

BTW, Jeep is already using a 9-speed auto in the new Cherokee. I hear it's an absolutely nightmare though. Hopefully they get everything ironed out. The guys who are lucky enough to have one that works really seem to like them though.
 
From what I read, Jeep was having calibration issues with that transmission, which is why they put a stop sale on it initially. Jeep quality in general has been horrid, so I take that as an indictment of Jeep/Fiat/Chrysler not of 9 speed transmissions.
 
From what I read, Jeep was having calibration issues with that transmission, which is why they put a stop sale on it initially. Jeep quality in general has been horrid, so I take that as an indictment of Jeep/Fiat/Chrysler not of 9 speed transmissions.

Judging by what I've seen in the forums, the only real issue with the new Cherokee is the transmission. Everything else seems okay. 9-speed automatics aren't exactly common, so it doesn't surprise me that they are problematic. They probably should've just put the 8-speed ZF in it and called it a day, but I guess that just wasn't possible with a FWD architecture.
 
Judging by what I've seen in the forums, the only real issue with the new Cherokee is the transmission. Everything else seems okay. 9-speed automatics aren't exactly common, so it doesn't surprise me that they are problematic. They probably should've just put the 8-speed ZF in it and called it a day, but I guess that just wasn't possible with a FWD architecture.

I agree that the 8ZF likely wasn't possible due to layout.

Jeep in general has horrid quality issues. Take a look at any quality measure you prefer about the JGC -- it is much worse than average. The same is true of the Cherokee.
 
I agree that the 8ZF likely wasn't possible due to layout.

Jeep in general has horrid quality issues. Take a look at any quality measure you prefer about the JGC -- it is much worse than average. The same is true of the Cherokee.

Worse than average...um, okay. Good thing that average is so damn good, huh?

The more I read here, the more I realize that people don't really understand the level of quality built into all vehicles these days. Pssst...don't look now, but late model cars are pretty darn good these days.:p
 
Not worse than average. Much worse than average. If you want to read tales of woe, surf over to your favorite Grand Cherokee forum.

Lets try to keep this in perspective. Land Rover is usually on the dead bottom of most reliability rankings. In fact, I've seen charts in Consumer Reports where Land Rover is so far on the bottom that they can't fit the line on the page and have to put a break in the line. Yet I don't see Land Rovers broken down on the side of the road all the time. In fact, in my area there is probably a disproportionate number of Land Rovers compared to most of the country. I see them all the time.....and they running alongside every other vehicle on the roads.

So what's my point? Simple-- even MUCH worse than average is damn good in the grand scheme of things. For example, if all 2015 vehicles fell into the top 90th percentile and then you sorted those 2015 vehicles from above or below average (yes, even far above or far below), even the ones on the bottom of the barrel would still be very good overall.

I don't know how on earth the motor public survived back in the days when cars actually broke down often.:wof:
 
[MENTION=109929]T.Rock[/MENTION] So you judge frequency of repairs and ownership costs on how many cars you see on the side of the road?
 
[MENTION=109929]T.Rock[/MENTION] So you judge frequency of repairs and ownership costs on how many cars you see on the side of the road?

You linked to the wrong T.Rock.. I'm Tbrock .. After I got that notifications I was thinking, "I didn't say anything of that nature," haha. :twitch:
 
Last edited:
Lets try to keep this in perspective. Land Rover is usually on the dead bottom of most reliability rankings. In fact, I've seen charts in Consumer Reports where Land Rover is so far on the bottom that they can't fit the line on the page and have to put a break in the line. Yet I don't see Land Rovers broken down on the side of the road all the time. In fact, in my area there is probably a disproportionate number of Land Rovers compared to most of the country. I see them all the time.....and they running alongside every other vehicle on the roads.

So what's my point? Simple-- even MUCH worse than average is damn good in the grand scheme of things. For example, if all 2015 vehicles fell into the top 90th percentile and then you sorted those 2015 vehicles from above or below average (yes, even far above or far below), even the ones on the bottom of the barrel would still be very good overall.

I don't know how on earth the motor public survived back in the days when cars actually broke down often.:wof:

Your assumption is incorrect because they'd have to actually make it OUT of the driveway and/or shop to break down AGAIN on the side of the road.
 
TRock doesn't like statistics. He prefers absolute numbers.

p.s. if you pm your email, I'll send you a picture of my crippled LR on a flatbed.
 
TRock doesn't like statistics. He prefers absolute numbers.

p.s. if you pm your email, I'll send you a picture of my crippled LR on a flatbed.

From Jalopnik about the Range Rover:

So anyway, a little background: about two years ago, I bought a 6-year-old Range Rover from used car retailer CarMax, the world's largest consumer of blue polo shirts. I also paid $3,899 extra for a bumper-to-bumper warranty, which included 6 years or 67,000 miles of coverage. I thought this was a good idea, considering that the latest JD Power reliability study ranks "Range Rover" slightly below "heroin addict."

Well, what happened next was predictable: the Range Rover started breaking. And breaking. And breaking. And at last count, after less than one-third of the warranty period had passed, the Range Rover had already racked up more in expenses than the warranty had cost to buy.

...

So I'm writing the "six best unreliable cars" piece a few weeks ago, and I decide to include a 2008 Range Rover with 52,000 miles – about the same figure my car had when I bought it two years ago. This is perfect, I think: it's the same age as mine was! It has the same miles! It looks the same! I'll post it up and talk about how you, too, can buy a used Range Rover with a cheap warranty and drive around worry-free for the next few years!

Except that isn't quite what happened.

Instead, what happened is that I called up CarMax of Random American Suburb, and I spoke to a guy named Roger, or possibly a woman named Sheila, I have absolutely no idea, and I asked for a warranty quote on this 2008 Range Rover. So Sheila/Roger went into the CarMax computer system, and typed in all the particulars, and the warranty quote came back: for the same warranty that cost me $3,899 just two years ago, CarMax is now charging $8,299.45

Eight thousand. Two hundred. Ninety-nine.

In other words: the jig is up! CarMax is hip to our scheme! The days of cheap warranties on breakdown-prone Range Rovers are officially over, and wannabe Land Rover owners must now go somewhere else to drive around, worry-free, in one of the most capable SUVs on the planet. Such as the Toyota dealer.

Full text here: You Can't Get A Cheap CarMax Range Rover Warranty Anymore
 
My Sister and BIL currently have 2 of those piles... err.. I mean Range Rovers, in their fleet.

So she calls me yesterday to ask my advice since I'm a former consumer car Mechanic. Apparently both are currently in the shop for wonky electrical gremlins. So they have 2 loaners. Well, one of the loaners apparently quit running too. If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny.
 
Most pickup truck fans probably know the new 2016 Toyota Tacoma will feature a new 3.5-liter V-6 engine, yet that isn't the whole story. This new engine will use the "Atkinson" cycle, most notably found in the Toyota Prius. It promises to provide better fuel economy, but could potentially cause confusion among buyers. Here is what you need to know.

Typical 'Otto' Engine Cycle

Before we get to the Atkinson cycle, we should first explain that the vast majority of gasoline engines use an "Otto" engine cycle. This cycle gets its name from German inventor Nikolaus Otto and his partner, Eugen Langen, who demonstrated its use in a four-stroke model in 1876. This is the cycle most people know: intake, compression, power and exhaust. It uses fuel, air and spark plugs to fire the piston, turn the crankshaft and make the engine run.

The cycle is so popular that most people don't think of it as the Otto cycle. They merely think of it as the gasoline engine. The Otto cycle was the basis of all gasoline engines until the Prius came along.

What Is the 'Atkinson' Cycle?

Simply put, the Atkinson cycle aims to use all of the energy in the cylinder. It does this by leaving the intake valve open longer, creating a shorter compression stroke.

In the Prius engine, the net result is an effective compression ratio of 8:1, while the expansion ratio is about 13:1. This differentiation results in the engine being 12 to 14 percent more efficient than the Otto cycle in terms of power output per fuel consumed.

When a typical Otto cycle finishes, there is some ambient pressure left in the cylinder. This pressure helps to "push" the spent gases out of the cylinder into the exhaust manifold and exhaust. While this system works, it wastes energy pushing the gases out rather than harnessing the energy to eventually turn the wheels of the vehicle.

With the Atkinson cycle, once the power stroke is complete (i.e., the four cycles are done) there is almost no remaining pressure in the cylinder. This is accomplished by leaving the intake valve open for a small portion of the compression stroke. As the piston head moves downward, a new, fresh fuel mixture is pumped in. At a predetermined point in the stroke of the piston, the intake valve is shut. The net effect of this is that the power stroke is shortened.

Both power and exhaust strokes remain the same in the Otto cycle, yet the Atkinson cycle uses almost the entire length of the piston travel.
A downside to the Atkinson cycle is that you still have to get the exhaust gases out of the cylinder since you aren't using ambient pressure any longer. Early Atkinson-cycle engines had superchargers to combat this problem. However, Toyota devised a "tumble flow" intake system on the Prius to counteract the problem. This unique system uses atmospheric pressure to push the exhaust gases out.

Another downside of the Atkinson cycle is the shorter power stroke delivers a narrower rpm range. In the Prius, Toyota solved this problem with a continuously variable transmission and an electric motor. These strategies keep the engine running in the optimal range while providing a smooth driving experience.

Additionally, the Prius' intelligent variable valve timing system adjusts the intake valve timing to maximize fuel efficiency.

We know the 2016 Tacoma will have Toyota's D-4S technology, which features direct and port fuel injection. This system is currently used on the Scion FR-S and Subaru BR-Z. It "combines injectors that inject fuel at high pressure directly into the cylinders, together with conventional injectors, injecting fuel into the intake ports," according to Toyota. The two systems turn on and off depending on engine speed.

The system also injects fuel during startup and at certain load points to improve combustion stability without using a restrictive intake port design that increases tumble flow.

What Does This Mean for Truck Buyers?

The Atkinson cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle, so the 2016 Tacoma's new engine will offer better fuel economy than other conventional V-6 engines without having to resort to turbochargers or diesel fuel.

While the Atkinson cycle does a great job of maximizing fuel economy in the Prius, it remains to be seen how the cycle will work in a pickup truck with very different duty cycles. Highway and empty-bed fuel economy will be improved, but we really don't know how towing or payload hauling will be impacted. We assume Toyota has this figured out and that's why it has taken so long to bring the Atkinson cycle to other vehicles (the Prius first went on sale in 1997).

In the end, the new 3.5-liter Atkinson-cycle V-6-powered Tacoma with a new six-speed automatic transmission and new rear differential is likely to have best-in-class fuel economy. How well it can handle pickup truck duty remains to be answered.

original article : How It Works: 2016 Toyota Tacoma's 'Atkinson' Cycle - PickupTrucks.com News
 
Last edited:

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,309
Messages
3,554,066
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top