Stressed. Need insight.

[Ford ST]

Is there a TSB or some other documentation/statement from Ford or Getrag that this is actually true? I'm genuinely interested, not trying to be an ass. This is a bit of a bold claim to rely on hearsay for.

This has been heavily discussed there's multiple threads on this site that go into detail about this issue.
I will ask you one question when you change your fluids do you check the fluid level after? hopefully the answer is yes. The Ford spec does not get you to the fill level not at all.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[jmrtsus]

I have searched this rumor for years........No TSB's, no change in levels. Everyone has an opinion. "Somebody said somebody saw something" is the best I get out of this. I would think if this "normally damages" shaft bearings Ford would have made changes. Got a verbal reply from Ford CC a few years ago that said Ford engineering had no knowledge of issues with the fill level as specified by Magna PT (Getrag). Got a boilerplate email from Magna PT after 4 weeks that simply said follow the Ford manual. I don't think putting in 2.0L will harm anything and it seems to make people feel better.

Maybe someone has something new on it.

 

[Intuit]

Is there a TSB or some other documentation/statement from Ford or Getrag that this is actually true? I'm genuinely interested, not trying to be an ass. This is a bit of a bold claim to rely on hearsay for.

First mention here...
https://www.fiestastforum.com/threads/transmission-fluid-change.10797/post-210467
Since then, multiple people were able to confirm. Two pieces of documentation that say something different. Ford confused themselves. Basically a documentation error that unfortunately resulted with underfilling at the factory.

Personally, the only benefit observed was getting rid of the "clickity-clackity" noises when moving the shifter around. Intermittent jittery-knocking noises with the clutch pedal out at idle, as well as the LOUD clack on clutch pedal release after shifting, is the dual-mass flywheel. Ford warranty doesn't fix things. They only create new problems and that's after having it for weeks. I'll fix whatever myself at somepoint down the road. (and no repeat business forever)

 

[The_Ryan]

Looks like the people in that thread were confused by the documentation, not the other way around. It seemed clear to me that 1.67 is the fluid spec stated in all the documentation

 

[Ford ST]

You go by the proper fluid level spec not capacity. You should do that with any fluid.
1.67 will not get you there. People have made their own ways to check the fluid someone even put a scope in the transmission. Any automotive shop that simply dumps fluid into something and doesn't check the level and adjust as necessary is not good.
Do as you wish. I mean come on a automotive manufacturer has never made a mistake before cough cough.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Ryan]

Well yes, you should follow service manual procedures. I know when I changed mine, 1.75 was about right, maybe some fluid was still in there. All I'm saying is that if underfilled trans was the cause of failed transmissions, why would Ford not at least issue a TSB to avoid more failed trans.

 

[jmrtsus]

First mention here...
https://www.fiestastforum.com/threads/transmission-fluid-change.10797/post-210467
Since then, multiple people were able to confirm. Two pieces of documentation that say something different. Ford confused themselves. Basically a documentation error that unfortunately resulted with underfilling at the factory.

Personally, the only benefit observed was getting rid of the "clickity-clackity" noises when moving the shifter around. Intermittent jittery-knocking noises with the clutch pedal out at idle, as well as the LOUD clack on clutch pedal release after shifting, is the dual-mass flywheel. Ford warranty doesn't fix things. They only create new problems and that's after having it for weeks. I'll fix whatever myself at some point down the road. (and no repeat business forever)

Simple answer.....no there is not that I have seen. And I believe if it was an "underfilling" it would have resulted in a TSB and changes to assembly fill levels and the car manuals. The difference I have seen listed showed 1.6L and 1.67L on our tranny which I believe is a less than 5% difference. The latest supplement to the ST that lists the capacity (2018) still shows 1.67L......did not see specs listed in 2019 but did not go page to page as the layout has changed. At 38K my 2016 tranny is just fine, but I don't do clutch drops or race/street race/autoX. Only hard driving my ST gets is lots of mountain roads. People that drive a highly tuned car hard may have transmission issues but my MP215 has never asked for anything over stock. The transmission maker and the car maker say 1.67L is correct, who am I to argue as this tranny is used in millions of cars in different transmission cases to fit other engines.

 

[Intuit]

Looks like the people in that thread were confused by the documentation, not the other way around. It seemed clear to me that 1.67 is the fluid spec stated in all the documentation

I can understand your confusion. The part of the documentaion that you missed, states to fill to 20mm below fill hole. In our observations, measurements and experiences, this isn't even close to 1.67L.

To make it simple:
FACT 1: Manual states 1.67L capacity.
FACT 2: Manual states fill to 20mm below fill hole.
FACT 3: It takes ~2.1L to reach, 20mm below the fill hole.
FACT 4: The car is level.

This isn't really a debate. I have a 2016. These are the facts for my vehicle. Others have had the same experience.

 

[Intuit]

@jmrtsus @The_Ryan - Not just Ford, but car companies have had defects and mistakes before that were/are not covered by TSB. They're usually (though not always) reserved for items that are considered to be safety related.

Not personally weighing in on whether or not this is related to any failures.

 

[The_Ryan]

I think recalls are mostly safety related, TSBs are for if there's repeated instances of an unanticipated failure/issue such as transmission failure. Eitherway it seems the moral of the story is to follow the fill procedures.

 

[jmrtsus]

@jmrtsus @The_Ryan - Not just Ford, but car companies have had defects and mistakes before that were/are not covered by TSB. They're usually (though not always) reserved for items that are considered to be safety related.

Not personally weighing in on whether or not this is related to any failures.

Safety related are not TSB's. Technical Service Bulletins is maintenance related and issued by Ford. Safety is issued through the feds, NHTSA. I can find no method of measurement for the 20mm, where did you find it in the manual? I must be missing it or just plain lost....... LOL!

I can understand your confusion. The part of the documentaion that you missed, states to fill to 20mm below fill hole. In our observations, measurements and experiences, this isn't even close to 1.67L.

To make it simple:
FACT 1: Manual states 1.67L capacity.
FACT 2: Manual states fill to 20mm below fill hole.
FACT 3: It takes ~2.1L to reach, 20mm below the fill hole.
FACT 4: The car is level.

This isn't really a debate. I have a 2016. These are the facts for my vehicle. Others have had the same experience.

Could it be the 20mm is what is incorrect? Ford Engineering confirmed 1.67L in the manual is correct and Magna PT confirmed to follow manual that says 1.67L. I wonder if anyone has asked Ford if the 20mm is correct?

 

[TyphoonFiST]

If its any consolation....My new unit put in 35k ago let out 2+ qts of fluid when I changed to Ravenol almost 2 years ago...FYI. I have a picture in my thread on Ravenol 75w80 showing this also.

Check out post #20

https://www.fiestastforum.com/threads/ravenol-75w80.17230/

 

[The_Ryan]

Safety related are not TSB's. Technical Service Bulletins is maintenance related and issued by Ford. Safety is issued through the feds, NHTSA. I can find no method of measurement for the 20mm, where did you find it in the manual? I must be missing it or just plain lost....... LOL!

Could it be the 20mm is what is incorrect? Ford Engineering confirmed 1.67L in the manual is correct and Magna PT confirmed to follow manual that says 1.67L. I wonder if anyone has asked Ford if the 20mm is correct?

The 20mm is the service manual. Doesn't really say where to measure from really which could explain why some people might not see the right level when they do have 1.7L in there.

 

[SteveS]

It says 1 in. or 20 mm. Those are not equal. 1 in. is 25.4 mm. That might get you down to 1.67 l of fluid...

 

[Intuit]

Last comment on the subject.

Safety related are not TSB's. Technical Service Bulletins is maintenance related and issued by Ford. Safety is issued through the feds, NHTSA.

True. Keep in mind: The fact remains that auto manufacturers do not always correct their mistakes. Saying that facts aren't facts simply because Ford didn't issue a correction to their documentation doesn't mean that facts cease being facts.

I can find no method of measurement for the 20mm, where did you find it in the manual? I must be missing it or just plain lost....... LOL! Could it be the 20mm is what is incorrect? Ford Engineering confirmed 1.67L in the manual is correct and Magna PT confirmed to follow manual that says 1.67L. I wonder if anyone has asked Ford if the 20mm is correct?

Once again, following the manual's documentation for fill, doesn't put you anywhere close the capacity specification.

@SteveS - 5.4mm is pretty close... just 1.24%. Yet we're talking about a nearly 20% difference between one part of the documentation, versus another.

EDIT:

It says 1 in. or 20 mm. Those are not equal. 1 in. is 25.4 mm. That might get you down to 1.67 l of fluid...

CORRECTION:
20mm / 25.4mm = 0.787 or 21% increase
1.67L / 2.1L = 0.795 or or 21% increase

@SteveS is on to something.

 

[jmrtsus]

It says 1 in. or 20 mm. Those are not equal. 1 in. is 25.4 mm. That might get you down to 1.67 l of fluid...

Thanks for the info. The diagram could be interpreted several ways........it also shows the fill hole as angled. And the hose as curved. Does not look like you can get any accurate measurements without a dipstick made for the correct placement with the hole on the correct angle. There is a .213 inch variation in just the data if you use the 20mm plus whatever measuring errors their will be when you try to make a dipstick without being the proper length or angle since we don't know. Is it level from inside hole edge, outside, 3 inches in held level, 4 inches in from angled hole? I can see why they just tell you 1.67L! Numbers .33L =20 cubic inches roughly. If the case is like 5 X 10 inches at the point of measurement that would be about about 1/4 inch in fluid level higher than 1.67L with 2L. I have never seen the tranny close up to get an idea of the case size at the fluid level so I guess it to be about 50 sq inches. So all in all not a big difference in 1.67L and 2L. Even less if it is larger than 50 Sq inches and within the area of 1 inch compared to 20mm. In the Mustang B6 the level for the V8 in 1/2" lower than the 4 or 6 Cylinder. So the more powerful engine uses less fluid....strange. Lower level for more powerful engine?

All in all it does not seem to make much difference in the transmission, I can see why they just specify the 1.67l rather than measuring. And with what appears to be 150K service life I have 10 more years to think about it!

Thanks to all for the info and opinions!

 

[MocaST]

When you do go in...let us know what they say and the outcome!

Thanks man. Will let you know when I take it in and I’ll keep y’all updated.

 

[MocaST]

I'd like to hear the outcome on this as well. And also, +1 on not changing the fluid before taking it in. If there are any shavings in the fluid, they should see that

Ten four. Glad y’all caught me in time before I foolishly changed the fluid. I’ll keep y’all up to date on when she goes in and what they say.

 

[maestromaestro]

Last comment on the subject.


True. Keep in mind: The fact remains that auto manufacturers do not always correct their mistakes. Saying that facts aren't facts simply because Ford didn't issue a correction to their documentation doesn't mean that facts cease being facts.


Once again, following the manual's documentation for fill, doesn't put you anywhere close the capacity specification.

@SteveS - 5.4mm is pretty close... just 1.24%. Yet we're talking about a nearly 20% difference between one part of the documentation, versus another.

EDIT:

CORRECTION:
20mm / 25.4mm = 0.787 or 21% increase
1.67L / 2.1L = 0.795 or or 21% increase

@SteveS is on to something.

It amuses me when I read that the break-in period in the US is 1000 miles, and in Canada it is - you guessed it, 1000 km.

 

[The_Ryan]

Last comment on the subject.


True. Keep in mind: The fact remains that auto manufacturers do not always correct their mistakes. Saying that facts aren't facts simply because Ford didn't issue a correction to their documentation doesn't mean that facts cease being facts.

But claiming Ford underfilled the trans isn't facts. It's ultimately just hearsay likely based on a flawed fill instructions and misunderstandings.