The 2022 Ram Promaster van got a transmission upgrade to the ZF nine speed automatic, as already used in many of the company’s FWD/AWD cars. The venerable six-speed 62TE, which was heavily based on the old A604 four speed, is apparently being retired, and having only six speeds does seem a bit out of date. Nine-speed sounds so much more…technically advanced and like a nice upgrade, but owners of 2022 Promasters are finding out that it’s really a seven-speed, as 8th and 9th gears are never used. As a result, some of them are feeling a bit cheated. Should they?
What happened to 8th and 9th gear? The Promaster is simply too big and boxy to utilize both of these highly overdriven gears. 9th gear is extremely high, at 0.48:1, and 8th, at 0.58:1, is not much lower. The 6 speed’s top gear (6) was 0.65:1, which as Promaster drivers know all-too well, was a struggle to stay in as soon as a mild grade or headwind is encountered. The 9 speed’s 7th gear (0.70:1) is almost identical to the old 6th gear, considering that the 9-speed comes with a slightly lower (higher numerical) 4.08:1 final drive ratio compared a 3.86:1 with the 6 speed.
Here’s the 9-speed ratios.
And here’s the 6-speeds ratios.
The Promaster’s software simply does not identify any situation when it would be beneficial to utilize 8th or 9th gear. And the result is that some owners feel cheated. Some posters at the Promaster forum have suggested that a lower (higher numerical ) final drive would solve the problem. No, it wouldn’t, as it would make 1st and possibly 2nd too low to use properly, or at all.
The only real solution would be to narrow the spread of the gear in the 9-speed, but that would be a very expensive undertaking, as that’s much more complicated than changing the gears in a manual box.
The reality is that a 7 speed has one more gear than a 6-speed, so there’s no real point to complain. It’s not like they paid extra for it asn an upgrade; it’s the standard transmission.
Would you feel cheated?
I would only feel cheated if it were marketed as having a nine-speed transmission, which apparently it is.
I would like to testify that a new and empty Promaster will shift into 9th when going downhill over 70 mph and coasting. Level ground and it’s back into 7th.
You can’t
mine won’t, tested up to 95 MPH on a straight, slight decline with flat throttle – 7th was all there was.
No. These transmission are out of control. Just to use weenier and weenier engine’s. Any more speeds and you might as well put a cordless drill on the input shaft. 🙂
The engine’s the same as before.
Just about sprayed coffee on the keyboard at that!
“it’s the standard transmission”… and I am SURE that there was zero added to the MSRP when the change was made, right? Even though Stellantis (or whoever they are this month) probably save money by reducing the SKU count in their inventories.
Who the FUG needs nine ‘speeds’, much less seven, or six…? Note the verb: “needs”.
😉
The fact that the van simply cannot use all those ratios (whether the lowest or the highest, depending on the final drive ratio) sort of supports my belief that we have reached the point of silliness in the number of gears automatic transmissions use. I admit I tend to prize simplicity over much else, and I have driven 5 speed automatics that could use another gear but once you have 6 decently spaced gears it is hard to see the benefit of any more.
Unless, of course, the point is to ace a CAFE test instead of simply providing a nice driving vehicle.
I for one would very much welcome another (appropriately spaced) gear (or two) in the Promaster. 6th is fine in easy cruising, but on even very mild grades or a headwind or twoing, or any two, or three of these conditions, it shifts to 5th, which is a pretty big jump. And the jump to 4th, when needed, is another fairly big one. A gear in between each would be ideal.
The ZF’s 6th gear looks to provide that missing gear, as the drop from 7th (cruising) is significantly smaller than the drop from 6th to 5th in the 6-speed box.
It’s easy to say that 5 or 6 speeds is plenty in a passenger car of minivan, but in a large van with its vastly greater aerodynamic drag (and weight) powered by a rather peaky V6, more gears are a very benefit.
There’s a reason folks are very happy with the 10 speeds in the GM/Ford truck transmission; the gears are much closer together, and the shifts are subtle; almost like a CVT.
And there’s the correct answer!
If you ultimately want moar gears, it’s best to put them in places that can be used effectively within the design mission of the vehicle. Two extra ratios that only might could be utilized when heading downhill, boosted by unicorn farts and with a stiff tailwind… pretty worthless. In a vehicle such as this one, splitting the usable ratios with those extra two gears to lessen the jump from one cog to the next- sure. Even if the powertrain management skips over a gear when lightly laden, they’re actually there and in a position to help in real world conditions. If the cost of honestly providing all nine speeds is too high, subtract two and call it a seven.
I love old cars and old tech, but one thing I can’t argue with is more gearing. My 1962 Stude Lark is capable of providing reasonable forward progress from a stop with the 2nd gear start Blight-O-Matic and a 3.07 final drive, but the 259 churns a lot of fluid into heat in the torque converter to do so. Even though it doesn’t complain or struggle to keep up in modern traffic, manually selecting 1st makes it snappier and more efficient.
J P Cavanaugh: I absolutely agree 100%. There is zero need (proof for) anything over a solid 6 speed. I’ve owned cars with 3 speeds, 4 speeds, 5 speeds, 6 speeds, CVT’s and exactly two 8 speeds. I had a loaner car with a 9 speed for nearly 2 weeks and hated every minute of it.
On another site, I’ve had this back and forth comments with others who think 9 and 10 speeds are the cats meow. However, all I would hear is crickets when I would ask what benefit the owner has with anything over 6 speeds. The only thing I would hear back was about being more competitive.
If it’s not giving me greater MPG’s with less fuss, then no thanks. Between the transmission wars and the my screen is bigger than your screen wars, it’s getting pathetic. It’s why I love older cars so much.
I had a Cherokee rental with the 9 speed last year…near as I can tell, it never shifted into 9th.
My Ford Transit with its 3.5 EcoBoost would probably work OK with a 3 or 4 speed (no 2 speed Ford-o-Matic for me please) but the seamless shifting of its 10 speed is very nice. Now if the ProMaster 9 speed is really programmed to not use all 9 gears, even going downhill with closed throttle at 90 mph, then it’s not a 9 speed and shouldn’t be advertised as such. And yes, I have confirmed with manual mode that my Ford has all 10, though some shifts are hard to detect.
I’d be curious as to the ratios of that 10 speed ( should look them up), but I have to assume the final gearing in 10th is not as tall as the Promaster’s in 9th, in order to be usable. But then the EcoBoost has a lot more torque down low.
Update: Just looked it up: the GM/Ford 10 speed has a total gear spread of 7.384; the ZF 9-speed has 9.819, which is significantly wider.
The gist of the problem is that the Ford unit was designed for trucks, this ZF 9 speed was designed for FWD smallish passenger cars, hence the wide spread.
Automatic transmissions have gone the way of bicycle derailleurs. Could someone explain to me why a road bike needs 11 or 13 gears on the rear (ok, some credit to the justification that the technology is doing away with the old double and triple chainwheels)?
Another instance of “advancing technology just because we can – and it advertises well” isn’t necessarily a worthwhile thing.
Thanks Syke, I was waiting for another “old” guy to speak up.
All these many-speed automatics make me skeptical of their real-life value and long term durability.
Back in the good old days:
The 1950 Riviera had one speed (in D) and well, it seemed OK.
The 1953 Packard had one speed (in D) but lockup felt like a second gear – it was a smooth driving car.
The 1953 Chrysler M6 had 4 forward gears, but I only used 3rd and 4th, so really 2 speeds. I didn’t complain.
The 1957 Chrysler had TorqueFlite; 3 very obvious speeds and it went like a rocket. No complaints there.
The 1957 Olds had 4 speeds and was so smooth you had to pay attention to notice them. Happy with it.
The 1967 Tempest had two speeds; slow and smooth but no rocket, and no complaints either.
The 1990 Sable had 4 speeds, sadly not very durable, would have liked fewer but better gears.
The 1995 Eagle had 4 speeds, sadly not very durable, would have liked fewer but better gears (is there an echo here?)
The 2013 Tacoma has 5 speeds, all seems OK so far, but hey, the next model has 6 speeds, I’ve been robbed.
And someone has the nerve to be upset abut only 7 speeds on a big brick shaped van?
I wouldn’t complain because more does not necessarily mean better (unless you’re looking at CAFE or are an ad copywriter).
Now… please and kindly step away from my lawn.
I came here to make that exact comparison…to bicycles. My first bike was a single speed. To me, three-speeds seemed like a big upgrade (in the late 1960s). Then 10 speeds became the norm….ok, that seems kind of fancy and I suppose dedicated cyclists could see and express an advantage to the additional gears. But I was entirely lost after that. 21, etc….
Basically, I just want to be able to go up a bit of a hill before getting off and walking.
(I am wearing a helmet, in case cyclists want to start throwing things at me. 😉 )
Yea, in the mid-1950s I delivered Long Island’s Newsday on a very heavy one speed coaster brake bike. My friends all had 3 speed “English Racers” and I envied them and their magical machines.
This experience may have scarred me forever with multi-speed (really just 3) envy and resentment.
Time to confess this to the good doctor.
The newest bicycle technology I’ve ever owned was a 2×9-speed Fuji, aluminum frame with carbon fiber fork and rear stays, and Shimano Ultegra brifters. Didn’t see a whole lot of advantage over any seven speed briftered bikes that I’d owned on and off, ended up selling it.
Current collection is definitely antique. Primarily 2×4 or 2×5 drivetrains, with a trio of Rossins sporting 2×6 with indexed downtube shifters, and one early 90’s Diamondback Expert running 3×7 drivetrain and brifters. Never saw any advantages to going more than 7 speeds in the rear, although I do consider brifters to be the last major improvement in bicycles for those of us who do not race professionally.
That’s easy: anyone who rides hard and fast knows it’s best to keep pedal cadence at a specific speed, for maximum power and efficiency. So yes, 11 or 13 gears are well utilized by anyone who wants to maximize their riding performance.
As a long-time biker, I’m rather surprised you asked that. I’m constantly wishing for more than the 6 speeds that my 18 speed road bike gives me in its middle chain wheel. Switching to the larger chain wheel doesn’t change the actual gear spread, just the “final drive” ratio. Same with the small one. But a 11 or 13 gear cassette gives optimum number of usable gears.
That’s the perfect answer.
I enjoy riding a Nexus 8 speed hub drive train. That’s for very casual riding on rather flat terrain.
I also enjoy an 18 speed drive train on a drop bar bike. I don’t ride it as much though.
When I was fit and rode a lot, yes, having the steps between gears be as close as possible especially at the upper end, was a great advantage. Incline gets just a bit steeper? You want to be able to downshift without ruining your cadence. Wind at your back picks up? You want to be able to upshift without ending up in a gear you can’t pull.
Now that I only ride an e-bike, and rarely, my nine speed rear cluster is completely unneeded. I think a four speed internally geared setup would be fine.
Some seem to be confusing the fact that the transmission has more speeds than they prefer for whatever reason with the fact that the top two ratios appear to be poorly chosen and outside of the usability envelope of the vehicle in a real-world environment. The exact same problem would occur if this were a four speed transmission and the top three ratios remained the same – i.e. it would then effectively become a 2-speed with the other two at the top not being used. Yay, apparent perfection.
That said and based on the comments, the best solution appears to only have one speed, time to go full EV.
But really, just because this particular one has some foibles (or that EPA testing can perhaps be exploited by ultra tall gearing that doesn’t work outside of the lab) does not mean that transmissions with large numbers of gears are inherently “bad”. It just depends on the goal. GM/Ford’s 10-speed is pretty much universally regarded as a smoother and better transmission )and uses all 10) than the older 8-speeds by anyone who has actually driven them. Even those 8-speeds are/were FAR better in driveline comfort and fuel efficiency than the older 6, 5 and especially 4-speeds that were in use as recently as just over a decade ago. Go drive some and actually try them before declaring them horrible. It’s not like the old transmissions with fewer ratios were bulletproof and never had problems.
It’s not the number of gears, it’s which gears and how they are used that makes the difference.
Comparing identical engines in identical model vehicles with a 6-speed vs an 8 or 10 with decent ratios when it was a year over year change quickly makes clear the benefit. Then again, gas prices have been dropping again and $3.50 a gallon is now “cheap”.
This 9-speed was designed for small-smallish passenger cars that can and do utilize its top two gears when loafing on the freeways. Using it in the Promaster without changing its internal gear ratios is simple a poor application, resulting in the inability to use those two top gears.
Just looked it up: the GM/Ford 10 speed has a total gear spread of 7.384; the ZF 9-speed has 9.819, which is significantly wider. That is the essence of the problem. One was designed for trucks, the other for light passenger cars.
If it was designed for light passenger cars, I have to wonder about its longevity in truck-type usage.
I don’t remember when or the number of gears, but wasn’t this an issue sometime ago with another Chrysler product (some Jeep like the Grand Cherokee) that got a similar, multi-geared automatic transmission?
IIRC, it was Car and Driver that brought up the fact that the top two gears were only rarely used, and then only in specific circumstances. Seems like it would be on long stretches of sparsely traveled highway with a slight downgrade like one might encounter out west. After some general complaining, I think Chrysler eventually corrected the programming so the top gears got used a bit more, but I don’t remember if had all that much overall effect or improvement on general driveability or fuel mileage.
IOW, very close to coasting, except the drivetrain would remain engaged.
It was the original release of the current Jeep Cherokee (not the Grand, the smaller one).
Yes, and it’s because the gear spread on this unit is exceptionally high: 9.819. The top two gears are rarely used even on light passenger cars.
The Austin Healey 100 used a 4 speed manual with the first gear blanked off in the shifter. So not the first time it’s been done.
I don’t know that I’d feel cheated, but I would definitely hope the 7/9 speed provides a more pleasant and durable driving experience than the 6 speed does in my Grand Caravan.
And I’d rather have the Healey..
From what I can gather on forums the 9 speed hardly ever uses top gear even on fairly light vehicles like the smaller Jeeps. Some claim they can actually never get it and some say on a slight downgrade at 70 it will go in.
In the Honda Application the 9 speed basically never uses the first gear (only in low traction conditions with manual shift or snow/offroad mode selected) and very rarely uses 9th.
Honestly it wouldn’t bother me much.
I think at this point you are at the limit of how many speeds are useful. One advantage these huge number of speeds do have is being able to use a gear for cruising that best matches the speed, which I’m sure helps the Cafe test.
If one was “back in the day” and the vehicle couldn’t “pull overdrive” it would mean that the final drive ratio needed to be numerically increased. That would effectively give you greater acceleration at low speeds, and let the car shift into overdrive at a speed you had the power to deal with. Here, methinks Stellantis just didn’t want to splurge for the tooling for a new final drive ratio.
They did change the final drive ratio, from 3.86 to 4.08, as shown in the charts. But the real issue is that the gear spread is too wide for this application.
This seems like the perfect place to reference…
Relevant comic;
https://xkcd.com/670/
If it is marketed as a 9-speed and the programing is such that it won’t shift into 8th or 9th in any situation then yeah I’d be unhappy and I expect that a class action lawsuit will be on the way.
Now if it just doesn’t use those gears in “normal” driving but there are some rare instances where it can shift into those gears then it is a different story.
According to users, they have not been able to document that either 8th or 9th was being used, by switching to manual while on the go, which shows what gear it is in. Ram is saying (on the forum) that the programming is designed to utilize the optimum gear for economy, emissions, etc., but not actually saying that 8th and 9th are essentially locked out. But it’s pretty obvious they are.
Even if one could find a scenario (60 mph tailwind) where it might theoretically be usable, it seems pretty absurdly low geared.
As noted above, this unit’s gear spread is exceptionally wide (9.819) which is simple too wide for this application.
The big money question is whether 8th and 9th are used in the standardized regimens used for official fuel economy and emissions tests.
What is the MPH per 1000 RPM in the top (9th) gear?
I’m just curious about what speed the engine would be turning at a steady 70MPH.
According to one poster, 71 mph = 1650 rpm in 9th gear. That’s too low for the PM. Aerodynamic drag really kicks in big time above 60-65 mph. I and all other owners have noticed that fuel consumption takes a real hit above 65 or so.
The 3.6’s torque peak is at a high 4800 rpm.
Nice…
So at peak torque in top gear you would be cruising at 200-210MPH.
It’s probably not much of a leap to suggest that aerodynamic drag is the real culprit here. With something slippery, 8th and 9th gear might occasionally engage.
But when pushing a really big brick through the air, well, I can’t ever see 8th or 9th gear being used.
I’m going to guess it’s just Stellantis trying to lower their costs by putting the same transmission in everything, instead of having an old six-speed that was only being used in one vehicle that’s been around for a long time, whether that transmission is appropriate for that application or not.
Well … really modern bicycles except for professional road racing or heavily laden touring, have fewer gears than in the past. Modern mountain bikes do not use front derailleurs, and the last few generations of frames designed without needing to make space for a front derailleur, have benefitted with improved geometry, stiffness, and suspension linkage design. My 7 year old MTB came with 2×10 (double chainrings in front, 10 speed cassette in back) but I deleted the front d and converted to 1×11 when my OEM drivetrain wore out. I’m now on my second 1×11; I don’t miss that front shifting at all!
Now 1×12 is standard on most mid-high end bikes, but it’s hard to cram all those cogs into the narrower axle spacing of older bikes. Recently, there’s an interesting aftermarket of inexpensive but high quality 9 and 10 speed cassettes with derailleur geometry optimized to help with the bigger jumps between gears and benefiting from the thicker side plates of chains designed for the wider physical spacing between the cogs which fewer cogs allows. I am tempted to try one for my next refresh unless I decide to get a newer bike.
Acknowledging that mountain biking doesn’t require the consistent cadence that Paul mentions, which drives a need for more, closely spaced gears. Pro road racing bikes use 2×12 (24 speed) drivetrains with electronic shifting.
Sure, modern bikes have fewer gears because the old double and triple chain wheel setups had lots of duplicated gear ratios.
But these new 10-12 speed cassettes have more actual gears, all readily usable and none duplicated. Duplicated gears don’t really count, right?
Good point, the gear spacing on these modern”one-by’s” is very useful, regardless of whether it’s 10 or 12speed. The newest 12 speed MTB cassettes have a 52/10 or 5.2:1 spread. However the range still isn’t as wide as on a 2x which is why the Tour de France guys still use a front mech, as they are known in British English, so they can climb the Alpe de Huez AND keep pedaling at 70+ mph (120+ km/h) downhills.
Nothing to say about Ram transmission, but bicycles yes.
I ride about 12-15 miles a day (weather permitting. There are five bikes I use. All is city riding. My bikes look like those English “racers” and they are suitably comfortable for someone beyond the years of multi speed road bikes with derailleurs.
I hate derailleurs. They are dirty and fragile and, as noted, provide duplicate “speeds” depending on where your chain is. The solution to that is the Shimano (or upscale Alfine) internally geared hub. These have seven or eight separate, consecutive speeds – just like the old Sturmey Archer that had only three. Two of mine have coaster brake within the hub also. These are more durable than derailleurs. They cost more and when broken service is costly – but can be done.
I endorse these Shimano seven and eight IGH strongly. You don’t have to mess with derailleurs ever again.
Most shops do not stock bikes with these hubs; they cost more so it is easier to sell a cheaper derailleur bike with more “speeds”. For my type of riding only IGH will do.
Agree on the Internally Geared Hub (IGH) for bikes. Another benefit is the ability to change gears while not in motion, i.e., after coming to an abrupt stop. Unfortunately, as stated, they’re more expensive than derailleurs, so that’s what the vast majority of bikes (especially low-end, big-box bikes) have.
In fact, I can’t remember (or even imagine) a big-box cheapie having an IGH. Someone wanting an IGH-equipped bike will most definitely have to visit an LBS and fork over a few more sheckels for one.
I’ve read the article and comments with great interest. I’m one of those who can be heard asking what the heck do I need anything more than 6 speeds for? Now I don’t get into the technical side of it as much and tend to keep it more simple. I’ve had everything from 3 speeds with torque converters up to 8 speeds and a few CVT’s. Of all the vehicles/trans I’ve experienced, the old 4 speed seemed to be the most logical. One of the things I look at is the RPM’s each car runs at 60 MPH. I have yet to find/drive a vehicle with the 8 or 9 or 10 speed that runs lower RPM’s than my cars years ago with the 4 speed.
When you have an article like this which points out that the vehicle in question can’t even get into the last two gears, I think it kind of tells us just how unnecessary anything over 6 speed really is.
I can assure you that this nine speed offers a much higher (lower numerical) top gear than your old four speed. 9th gear is 0.48; no 4 speed had anywhere near that gearing.
This vehicle is an exception, because they put a passenger car transmission into a large van. Hence the issue.
Paul: That may be true on this vehicle. I’m not at all familiar with it nor have I ever driven it. But let me give a couple examples of what I’m speaking of:
2001 Chevy S10 4×4 with 4.3 V6 and 4 speed. vs. 2003 Ford Ranger 4×4 with 4.0 V6 and 5 speed. The S10 got better MPG and ran about 400 less RPM at 60 mph.
2018 Buick Encore with 1.4L and 6 speed vs. 2020 Cadillac CT4 2.0L and 8 speed vs. 2021 Cadillac XT4 2.0L and 9 speed. Of the three (I owned the Encore and CT4 while the XT4 was a loaner). At 60 mph, the Encore ran nearly exactly the same RPM’s as the other two. Yet, that XT4 transmission was one of the worst I’ve ever driven! I couldn’t wait to get my CT4 back and the MPG on the XT4 couldn’t come close to the CT4’s. On top of that, of those three vehicles, the Encore’s 6 speed had the best shifting with the least hunting and wasn’t constantly shifting like the 9 speed.
So tell me why I’d want to spend more money on a more complicated trans that shifts more with zero drop in RPM’s and zero improvement in MPG?
Like Paul says, it’s about ratio spread, not the number of gears.
For example, there were some high-performance Honda VTEC models with close-ratio five-speed gearboxes so concerned with keeping revs up that there was no decent highway cruising gear. A fair number of people (including me) wished for a sixth gear to alleviate that problem, but when Honda did start using six-speed gearboxes on those applications, they kept the same too-short final drive ratio and just sliced the intermediates even finer — good for performance, not so good for the nerves or highway fuel economy.
Hell, even regular Hondas were like that to some extent. My Element AWD 5 speed certainly was.
Not just Hondas. My Accent is spinning 3000 at only 60mph.
Alright … that just about beats the topic of many-geared automatics to death, let’s talk about how real stick and rudder left seat drivers do it the old fashioned way.
Show ’em Dom.
I assume it comes with a two-speed differential?
I recently saw a picture of what looked like the OEM gearshift knob on a manual trans Ford SuperDuty from the early 2000’s. R-L-1-2-3-4-OD in the modern conventional H pattern.
Why dont they phone Eaton Fuller and get an 18 speed auto shift transmission and be done with it, dont get the smart shift I drive every day go it still has a clutch pedal (good for a leg work out) go for the ultra shift and its fuel saving tech, yes they are horrible to drive especially in town but thats the programing Im sure that can be upgraded to suit and you can leave a lot of gears out in daily driving should you wish.
Gee, people are really spoiled these days. I used to row a three on the tree in my Chevelle. I didn’t feel like I needed any more speeds. But it could have used a pair of extra cylinders, since it had 6 in a row in 70’s smog era form.
Driving a 3 on the tree in today’s traffic is doable but man, you’re thankful for progress when you get in something more modern. Ask how I know.
Would they feel less cheated if they were told it was a 7-speed, even though 8th and 9th are physically there and just locked out by software?
It seems like the 9-speed gives you an additional half step between the old 6th (7th for the new trans) and 5th (roughly the same for both). If the old trans had to drop to 5th frequently before as you said, now there is an intermediate ratio that can mitigate some of the fuel consumption and noise penalty. Also it seems that starting off would be better with the 9-speed since 1st and 2nd are higher. So it seems like it’s still an upgrade overall (and a free one at that), just not as much as you might expect from 50% more gears.
I think Paul hit it on the head. It’s the wrong transmission for this application, so it makes do with what it has to contend with.
Would they feel cheated if it went to 8th and 9th, and their speed went from 70 to 68, 67, 65, 63…SHIFT to 6th or 7th, then back up to 70, then shift into 8th/9th, then speed goes to 67, 65, 61 then SHIFT down, and back up to 68 (you’re on a slight grade now), and on and on? I mean if it’s not capable of using the gear(s), why would you want it to? To make the engine lug and then force the transmission to constantly downshift to maintain speed? That will not help fuel economy, nor long term durability. Quite the opposite.
Will it shift into 8th or 9th gear if you are doing 90mph?? 100mph?? People in Germany with this van would cruise at those speeds reguarly(provided the boss man is footing the bill for gas lol)
No. In order to go 100, you need max. engine power (high rpm). You’d probably have to be in 6th gear on the 9 speed; 5th, or even 4th in the 6 speed.
You can’t cruise at 90 or 100 in a big van with the engine loafing along at 1900 rpm or so. Impossible.
It sounds to me like Stellantis installed the 9-speed in this application, because it’s what they had, found the endless shifting between 8th and 9th to be a horrible experience, and simply disabled those gears and locked it out at 7th. In such a scenario, it might have been wiser to stick with the original 6-speed, but perhaps manufacturing realities prevented that option.
Either way, I applaud Stellantis. I do, however, think that they should market it as a 7-speed, and not a 9-speed.
Surely it all comes down to the torque characteristics of the engine? Peaky engines need more gears to keep them ‘on the boil’; from driving my wife’s ’15 Mini Cooper I can understand that. But in a truck that shouldn’t be the issue. I’m assuming truck engines are still luggers rather than screamers.
And I have to wonder whether any vehicle really needs such a broad gear spread in the first place.
What “truck engines”? “Luggers”?? This engine has been used in a huge variety of passenger cars, Jeeps, pickups, SUVs, vans and whatever. Nowadays, there’s essentially no such thing as a “truck engine”. And modern engines like this one with variable valve timing generate 90% of their max. torque from 1800 to 4800 rpm.
It’s the 21st century, Pete. 🙂
Sounds like a good old-fashioned case of bait and switch, to me—a kind of false and misleading advertising. A nine-speed transmission in which two of the speeds are never active is legitimately marketable only as a seven-speed transmission.
Questions about how well those seven speeds work in this vehicle are a completely separate matter.
Agreed that gears 8 and 9 are too tall for this application. No problem using a already designed trans and locking them out with software, rather than redesigning the trans. Every manufacturer reuses designs in one way or another.
Just don’t advertise it as a 9 speed trans in this vehicle. As a vehicle package it is a 7 speed. I would feel that they are using false advertising to sell products.
Like Gregg Freeman stated in the second post, and I expanded on in my post awaiting moderation, Stellantis might get around this by allowing the transmission to shift into 8th or 9th under extremely limited circumstances.
It’s like the top speed of a vehicle, for most drivers: It might get used only once or twice during the lifetime of the vehicle, but by golly those two gears are there for you if you ever need them!
Not highlighting the 8th and 9th gear really had possibilities. Think about it: people who got this transmission (that Chrysler told them was a 7-speed) would consider it a surprise ‘Easter Egg’ bonus freebie when they found out they got two extra gears ‘for nothing’ (even though the extra gears themselves did absolutely nothing, as well).
I think Honda uses this same transmission with different gearing. Used on the Ridgeline, Pilot and Passport. They had some issues with it before but apparently fixed as that is now the only available transmission in those vehicles.
We have a new Ford Transit at work with the 10 speed. Complete utter crap to drive. It can’t figure out which gear to use and isn’t very smooth about it either. Too little motor with too many gears.
Wow, I had no idea the Transit had so many gears. 10 gears really sounds extreme. I’m a little suprised it’s not liked, too. Seems like comparison reviews with the Promaster favored the Ford, but I could be mistaken (or they were old reviews).
Until his comment, I’d heard nothing but good things about the Transit and the 10 speed. The most you could consider criticism would be “Yeah it shifts a lot, but it always seems to be in the right gear.”
Yeah, the cargo van that I had read was really craptacular due mainly to its dual-clutch transmission was the smaller Promaster City (aka Fiat Doblo). The Ford cargo vans, whatever the size, seemed to be the better choice.
I’ve rented a few 10-speed Transits, and my impression matches Erik’s.
It’s not the first time an automaker has locked out a feature through programming of the PCM, and it won’t be the last.
I’m reminded of ten years ago, when I purchased my 305 hp, 2012 Mustang V6 with the Performance Package (which at that time included most or all of the GT bits, with the exception of the engine, of course). Ford electronically limited the top speed on V6s to 112 mph (180 km/h) due to the base model tire’s speed ratings, and because the lightweight driveshaft that was used to achieve 30 mpg in the V6 version tends to self destruct at speeds in excess of 120 mph. Depending on who you believe, the “real” top speed is somewhere around 135 and 140.
A young guy on one of the Mustang forums (I seem to recall he was 19 or 20) was absolutely enraged, stating that Ford engaged in “deception” by limiting the top speed, and that we should form a class action against Ford. Those of us who were older and/or wiser (including a few who were attorneys) kept asking, “Where did Ford Motor Company advertise a top speed for the V6 Mustang…or any current Mustang, for that matter?”
But in this case, the Promaster is indeed advertised as having a nine-speed transmission. I’m inclined to agree with Mark H that this transmission accomplishes pretty much all that is ever needed with the seven lowest gears, and by using this unit Stellantis avoids having to stock another transmission. But for Stellantis to avoid legal action it wouldn’t surprise me if what Gregg Freeman posted is correct: The transmission WILL shift into its two highest gears under specific, rare circumstances (going downhill at a certain speed, when Jupiter aligns with Mars, on a full moon, on the fifth Monday of a given month) so that it can be truthfully be stated that it’s a “nine-speed.”
Shades of the AU ? Falcon pursuit cars used by some Australian police. Speed limited to 180 KMH. Not much of a pursuit vehicle when a Camry can out run you is it?
Yeah I think perhaps there are too many gears. I of course remember the old Ford O Matic and it’s 2 speeds just killing any acceleration, but on the other hand I’ve driven modern cars, often crapboxes like a 2012 Corolla I rented one time that just drove me nuts. It was only a 4 speed, a poorly programed one I might add, and more gears might have made it better. But hit any grade and it was a constant cycle of downshift, buzz up to 5K or so, upshift and it couldn’t pull the hill and would drift down only do downshift again in an endless cycle. Gawd I hated that car. I had a GM pickup from work for a time, probably late 80s and simply put it couldn’t pull 4th gear. On those rare occasions I was out on the freeway I pulled it down to 3rd because in 4th it was chugging and bucking and really unpleasant to drive.
Perhaps more than 6 minimizes it, but I hate it when tranny won’t make it’s mind up for a constant situation and throws me back and forth in the seat. I know, perhaps it’s still reliable shifting all the time, but I would hope they would want to make it nice to drive, but from the ones I’ve driven that doesn’t seem to be a concern.
Or are we just a step away from CVTs. I mean isn’t that the whole point of an auto with more than 3 or 4 ratios? I put ~4500 miles on a rental Maxima with a CVT and didn’t even realize it was a CVT!
Now I’m not sure it would be of any value, but to advertise it as a 9 speed, but effectively lock out the top 2 is false advertising and it would serve them right if they did get sued for it.
The only Japanese car maker that offers a proper automatic rather than CVT here is Mazda and they are topping the sales charts, everything else from Japan is CVT often disguised with shift steps but still CVT.
My 2005 Tundra (4×4, 4.7 V-8, 3.90 final drive) had the then new five speed automatic with two overdrive gears. Engine hp peaked that year, but this was a high revving four cam 32 valve with torque peak well over 3000rpm. When running empty on completely level ground at 70mph plus fifth gear worked, and delivered up to 21mpg on E10.
With even the slightest grade the cruise control would try and hold speed until the engine bogged down and the transmission would slam down sometimes TWO gears, chirp the tires and tach went way up. All settled down until the next slight grade. I had to manually use the convenient button on the end of the shift lever to avoid this.
Allison Automatics occasionally are used with the 6th gear locked out by the programming. When engineering called for the 5 speed version in our tandem plow trucks we had the spec changed to the six speed. We were often running empty trucks significant distances and running at 70 mph at a lower engine RPM for better fuel economy.
Some of the newer automated manuals will lock out high gear depending on the perceived load. The transmission controller with all of the sensors can figure out how heavily loaded the truck is and lock out top gear. This is usually done when the truck is spec’d for a low engine RPM at cruise speed.
My experience with trans speeds relates to western mountain driving. I would have liked a few more gears more closely spaced back in the day or a turbocharger to get up the pass.
Can’t tell you how many times the car couldn’t pull top gear but the engine would be screaming in the next lower gear. The solution, more gears and more horsepower.
I had a 2010 Fusion Sport, 3.5L with a six speed and mountains were no problem.
As for the 10 speeds. I have a 2018 F150 SuperCrew, 3.5L EcoBoost, 4×4, 3.55 rear gear 6.5ft box. I pull a ORV 24RLS RV bumper pull trailer. Combined weight around 16,000 pounds. The truck uses all 10 gears even when pulling the trailer in tow/haul mode. The trans will slip into tenth gear when all conditions are perfect. I believe there is a minimum speed requirement for tenth to be used. I’m guessing its around 70 mph. Flat ground and minimal wind or a tailwind. The advantage with the 10 gears is with manual control you can keep the engine in the sweet spot for pulling a hill and also using the engine braking for descending the hill. Combine this with the much lower torque peak of a turbocharged engine and you got a great mountain climbing vehicle. The only downside is one can burn a lot of fuel.
I remember going thru mountains where top speed was in the 30 mph range and non-turbocharged diesels pouring huge clouds of black smoke.
So Stellantis apparently screws up by advertising the trans as a nine speed when engineering blocked out two useless gears. A lower rear end ratio helps but it also has a taller tire than a car would typically use so that cuts into some of the diff gear change.
These ProMasters IMO have been behind the competition from the start and they are struggling to catch up, also doesn’t help these things are so ugly.
It’s worth noting that the ProMaster is based on the Fiat Ducato that has been around since 1993.
Facelifted in 2002, it was brought to the US by Marchionne as the 2015 ProMaster.
I tried.. It doesn’t work.
Everyone is bashing the transmission and the number of gears it has when that has nothing to do with 8th and 9th not being able to be used. The problem is the engine isn’t matched to the transmission/vehicle. GM uses a 2.7L four cylinder in its full size truck and it’ll tow 13,300 lbs which is almost twice what the Promaster does plus the truck weighs more. GM matched the torque curve to the transmission/application and it easily gets into 8th gear. Cadillac mates the same engine with a lower peak torque to a 10 speed and it has no problem pulling 10th gear. The 2.7L engine is turbocharged, it makes 430 lb-ft of torque from 1500-4000 RPM which gives about 120 HP at 1500 RPM…more than enough HP to pull top gear. The 3.6L V6 in the Promaster has 250 lb-ft of torque at 4400 RPM with less than half of that available at 1600 RPM. In 9th gear at 70 MPH, that works out to about 1575 RPM where the engine is making less than 30 HP…not nearly enough to pull 9th gear at 70 MPH on level road.