How much torque can the tranny, PTU and rear diff handle?

[Jeff2017]

Anyone know how much torque the driveline of the SHO is designed to cope with without premature failure. I am assuming that Ford tuned these cars to be reliable comfortably past the warranty period. I would assume 100k miles at least. If they could have bumped the HP and torque up to 400HP/375lbs. ft. safely, would they not have done that to make the car more competitive and easier to sell?

 

[StealBlueSho]

Anyone know how much torque the driveline of the SHO is designed to cope with without premature failure. I am assuming that Ford tuned these cars to be reliable comfortably past the warranty period. I would assume 100k miles at least. If they could have bumped the HP and torque up to 400HP/375lbs. ft. safely, would they not have done that to make the car more competitive and easier to sell?

LMS states that the rods have a higher chance of fracturing once you go over 450 hp/tq..

Mike B has pushed the limits of the ecoboost 3.5 transverse drive train and pretty much said the same thing... he started seeing issues once he went over 450 hp/tq...

When I load the tune from AJPTURBO who's shown via dynos from his car and various others that the tune pushes 450tq or higher, I can tell it puts more stress on the drive train.

Mind you, Ford probably keeps these car well below any failure threshold due to varying climates, maintenance, and tolerances...

Once you tune the 3.5 (or any cars) it is recommended to follow the severe duty maintenance schedule to avoid any issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bpd1151]

Unless mine's some kind of anomaly, I've beaten the crap out of my drivetrain with my lower track file (525awhp & 506awtq) routinely, and knock on wood, it's held up thus far.

Just clipped past 75k on the OEM drivetrain and not a blip. Of course I am religious about swapping out the tranny fluid 2x per year, once in the Spring, and again in the Fall, regardless of mileage accrued.

I was told directly, from the very engineering team that developed our platform, that FMC's own internal testing did not begin presenting failures until "around the 720 mark".

That being 720chp to be clear.

Due to this info, I have purposely avoided running my highest track of 617awhp & 608awtq for this very reason.

So suffice to say, your individual experiences will be completely contingent upon your levels of maintenance, as well as your driving style.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[SHOdded]

LMS states that the rods have a higher chance of fracturing once you go over 450 hp..

Mind you this is AWHP, not crank

 

[Johnbigdog]

If you didn't know 6F55 stands for: 6 speed, Front wheel drive,550 lb ft of torque. 550 being the torque rating of the transmission components. I guess BDP1151 has proven the 6F55 to be quite stout.

 

[Jeff2017]

If you didn't know 6F55 stands for: 6 speed, Front wheel drive,550 lb ft of torque. 550 being the torque rating of the transmission components. I guess BDP1151 has proven the 6F55 to be quite stout.

Very interesting. Thanks!

 

[Jeff2017]

If you didn't know 6F55 stands for: 6 speed, Front wheel drive,550 lb ft of torque. 550 being the torque rating of the transmission components. I guess BDP1151 has proven the 6F55 to be quite stout.[/QUOTE
Are you sure the 55 isn't newton meters? Someone on another forum said the 55 is newton meters and you multiple by 10 which puts this tranny at just over 400 lb. ft.

 

[StealBlueSho]

If you didn't know 6F55 stands for: 6 speed, Front wheel drive,550 lb ft of torque. 550 being the torque rating of the transmission components. I guess BDP1151 has proven the 6F55 to be quite stout.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.auto...n-for-ecoboost-engines-573/amp/?client=safari



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Johnbigdog]

You could be corect.

I have been told lb ft. I'll ask again when I talk to some engineering friends. If I remember.

I just remember that the new 3.0 continental uses the 55. It puts out "400" lb-ft of torque. This would give the transmission 5 nm. Of wiggle room. I have a hard time believing for longevity of a luxury car we would build in that close of a tolerance range.

Someone's going to tune that car and we know it.

 

[Jeff2017]

You could be corect.

I have been told lb ft. I'll ask again when I talk to some engineering friends. If I remember.

I just remember that the new 3.0 continental uses the 55. It puts out "400" lb-ft of torque. This would give the transmission 5 nm. Of wiggle room. I have a hard time believing for longevity of a luxury car we would build in that close of a tolerance range.

Someone's going to tune that car and we know it.

I agree, it seems like a lot more trannies would be blowing up if 400 lb. ft. is the upper limit.

 

[bpd1151]

I've proven it's not the case.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[brucelinc]

Regarding the Lincolns with 400 Lb/ft of torque: They seem to have a bit more torque management built into the ECU than previous ecoboost engines. Power is cut pretty drastically at the shift point. Having said that, Ford is notorious for being very conservative about not putting TOO much power to a driveline. As others have stated, the 6F55 has proven to be very robust. Keeping fresh fluid it in is also key.