Drivetrain strength

[High on Ethanol]

He never did get to run that Flex after his (claimed/alleged) 600hp dyno session.

Trans popped and he had that thing back to stock everything and traded it in less then 7 days afterwards.

A shame. Was a nice look'n Flex too.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yeah that was the crazy part. How fast it was stock and gone!

 

[Michigan-SHO]

Yeah that was the crazy part. How fast it was stock and gone!

I apologize to whoever got that Flex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ecoboost_xsport]

And no, he never publicly divulged what went specifically.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Kinda sucks...could've been some valuable information. Even in failures we can learn things...

 

[SHOCALL]

Kinda sucks...could've been some valuable information. Even in failures we can learn things...

I've learned the most in my life from failure.

 

[SM105K]

The only common transaxle issue Ive seen personally is the snap ring issue that has nothing to do with torque or HP. I have yet (despite seeing the question posted multiple times here an EBP) to have a specific failure pointed out when you put a lot of power through the 6F55.
It's generic to say transaxle failure, we really need to know what the weak link(s) are. Torque converter, specific clutch pack, drum, gear set, case. Not that there's much aftermarket support, but some of you are willing to put the time and $$$ in to see how far things can be pushed. Does anyone know factually, what parts are breaking internally?

Yes sir. That is exactly what happened to mine. Snap ring failed.

 

[Ecoboost_xsport]

Yes sir. That is exactly what happened to mine. Snap ring failed.

So maybe simply a better built one? Anybody know the OEM part number for that snap ring?

 

[shoblock]

Just for some more Ford trivia for those who are unaware. The '55' in 6F55 means it's safe for up to 550 ft./lbs. of torque. An 8F57 would take 570 ft./lbs. of torque and all recent Ford transmissions follow this nomenclature. While in Sharonville, I was part of the launch team (dimensional issues) for th 6R140. (Yep, 1400 ft./lbs of torque!!!) It was in the process of replacing the 5R110. 1100 for those still reading.....
Shoblock

 

[Ryan Selcer]

Just for some more Ford trivia for those who are unaware. The '55' in 6F55 means it's safe for up to 550 ft./lbs. of torque. An 8F57 would take 570 ft./lbs. of torque and all recent Ford transmissions follow this nomenclature. While in Sharonville, I was part of the launch team (dimensional issues) for th 6R140. (Yep, 1400 ft./lbs of torque!!!) It was in the process of replacing the 5R110. 1100 for those still reading.....
Shoblock

But the 6r140 isn't a transaxle?

 

[High on Ethanol]

Just for some more Ford trivia for those who are unaware. The '55' in 6F55 means it's safe for up to 550 ft./lbs. of torque. An 8F57 would take 570 ft./lbs. of torque and all recent Ford transmissions follow this nomenclature. While in Sharonville, I was part of the launch team (dimensional issues) for th 6R140. (Yep, 1400 ft./lbs of torque!!!) It was in the process of replacing the 5R110. 1100 for those still reading.....
Shoblock

10R140
First for speeds 10, second for drive R(rear), third for torque 140(1400)

 

[High on Ethanol]

Just for some more Ford trivia for those who are unaware. The '55' in 6F55 means it's safe for up to 550 ft./lbs. of torque. An 8F57 would take 570 ft./lbs. of torque and all recent Ford transmissions follow this nomenclature. While in Sharonville, I was part of the launch team (dimensional issues) for th 6R140. (Yep, 1400 ft./lbs of torque!!!) It was in the process of replacing the 5R110. 1100 for those still reading.....
Shoblock

I thought ford used Newton meters, is that incorrect? As in 1400N-m

 

[shoblock]

I thought ford used Newton meters, is that incorrect? As in 1400N-m

This was in 2006, and my memory is only as good as my old age. But at the time I'm sure that we spoke of it as foot pounds. Unfortunately, I don't have the print in front of me and I had 197 prints to keep track of...

 

[Ecoboost_xsport]

I thought ford used Newton meters, is that incorrect? As in 1400N-m

I know they list both for torque specs in the service manual with ft-lbs being listed "first". But I had heard that too, that the number after the letter was in Nm. But that would convert the 6F55 (6 gears, front wheel drive, 550Nm torque capability) torque value to about 405ft-lbs. And I know a lot of ppl have gone way past that value...

 

[High on Ethanol]

I know they list both for torque specs in the service manual with ft-lbs being listed "first". But I had heard that too, that the number after the letter was in Nm. But that would convert the 6F55 (6 gears, front wheel drive, 550Nm torque capability) torque value to about 405ft-lbs. And I know a lot of ppl have gone way past that value...

But nothing is rated at 100%. Think about ratchet straps. Working load vs breaking strength.

 

[Ecoboost_xsport]

But nothing is rated at 100%. Think about ratchet straps. Working load vs breaking strength.

True, I'm just thinking about that 6R140 that was mentioned earlier. Using the same logic applies to the 6f55, that would put that transmission at about 1100ft-lbs...working load? Or max capacity? Idk...just throwin ideas out there....for all we know, those numbers don't mean anything at all, lol.

 

[SHOCALL]

But nothing is rated at 100%. Think about ratchet straps. Working load vs breaking strength.

Design factor. In my industry, we use a 7:1 factor on most equipment. Except for personal fall protection which is 2:1.

 

[shoblock]

True, I'm just thinking about that 6R140 that was mentioned earlier. Using the same logic applies to the 6f55, that would put that transmission at about 1100ft-lbs...working load? Or max capacity? Idk...just throwin ideas out there....for all we know, those numbers don't mean anything at all, lol.

The numbers absolutely do mean something they are the results of extensive testing. The six are 140 was commonly referred to as being able to handle 1400 ft pounds of torque and the 5R110 would handle 1100 ft pounds of torque these are for rear wheel drive F-350 trucks

 

[shoblock]

The numbers absolutely do mean something they are the results of extensive testing. The six are 140 was commonly referred to as being able to handle 1400 ft pounds of torque and the 5R110 would handle 1100 ft pounds of torque these are for rear wheel drive F-350 trucks

Oh, the 6R140 was being developed in tandem with general motors. There were only three different parts between the two companies for that transmission.(ours was better heh heh)

 

[shoblock]

More trivia. There was an employee in sharonville whose only job was to take heavy duty pickups out and blow the transmission. There was and I'm sure still is a very steep ramp behind the plant where he would deliberately try to destroy the transmission dragging heavy things up the ramp. He really enjoyed his job!of course he also took them on the road and sometimes he would jokingly be told not to come back until he needed a tow truck

 

[shoblock]

There is a locked down tear down area where skilled mechanics disassemble transmissions to see what broke. If a Ford engineer tells you there is a weak spot or a torque limit or a horsepower limit it is because he has seen the results of these tear backs which he is not publicly allowed to discuss