Ford, Ram, and Now GM Bringing 8 Speeds to 2013/2014 Trucks – Will Toyota Follow?
Jason Lancaster | Jan 09, 2012 | Comments 16
Automotive News is reporting that the next generation of GM pickup trucks will feature at least one 8 speed automatic transmission, the goal of course being to reduce fuel economy in order to meet federal fuel economy regulations. It’s estimated that going from 6 speeds to 8 speeds can increase fuel economy 3-6% (likely closer to the higher number in a pickup), and that combined with other fuel-saving technologies, the next generation of trucks coming out in 2013/2014 could see 10-20% fuel economy improvements right away.
Of course, all of these fuel economy improvements don’t come without a cost. An 8-speed transmission, for example, can add hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle depending on the cost of development and how that cost is amortized. Industry analysts say that developing an all-new transmission costs $500 million to $1.5 billion dollars, which is why it’s a bit of a surprise to see Ford, Ram, and now GM rushing an 8 speed to market in time for the 2014 model year.
If you’ll recall, Ram is adding an 8 speed automatic to their truck, but it will be based on an existing transmission developed by ZF. As a result, the costs will be quite a bit lower for Ram…but this begs the question, will Ram’s 8 speed transmission be of the same capability as purpose built 8 speeds from Ford and GM?
Will Toyota Match 8 Speed Offerings from Ford, Ram, and GM?
We haven’t heard a peep about an 8 speed transmission on the next generation 2014 Tundra, but that certainly doesn’t mean that Toyota isn’t working on one. However, Toyota’s economics are a bit different than GM and Ford.
- The federal fuel economy ratings apply to an automaker’s entire fleet. It’s an average rating you must meet across all trucks in your line-up. With plans for a Scion pickup (based on the next-gen Rav4) and a new direct-injection engine in the Tacoma that should boost fuel economy, Toyota’s fleet is inherently more fuel efficient than fleets from Ford, GM, and Ram. Therefore, Toyota won’t have to improve the fuel economy of the Tundra as much to meet the federal regulation.
- Toyota has a viable hybrid Tundra on the drawing board, likely ready for release in 2015/2016. This too will help Toyota meet the fuel economy goals without necessarily requiring them to invest in an 8-speed transmission.
- The biggest hesitation with an 8 or 9 speed automatic is related to durability. 6-speed automatics are plenty complicated as it is, but the technology is mature enough to be considered reliable. 8 speeds automatics? Never been done before, at least in a pickup in North America. (NOTE: Some medium duty trucks have more than 8 speeds, but they get there using a dual axle, so technically they’re not 8+ speed automatics)
Still, the fact is, marketing from Ford, GM, and Ram is going to harp on the fact that more speeds are better…just as Toyota did when the Tundra debuted in 2007 with a 6 speed and some manufacturers (GM and Ram) were still using 5 speeds.
What do you think – is Toyota going to come up with an 8 speed for the Tundra in time for 2013?
Related Posts:
Filed Under: Auto News
Absolutely Toyota will match or exceed. With <100,000 units sold in 2011 they will want to match, or outdo, the competition as much as possible. I just hope they consider bringing the 4.5L V-8 diesel on top of it. A light duty diesel would boost sales. Even better if it got 25+ mpg!
Doubt toyota will debut in late 2013 a new 8 speed tranny or new engine. Toyota seems to not follow right away or lead in the market segment for changing things up. Look at the camry and corolla for example. I cannot believe the 4 speed 1.8L in the corolla hasn’t changed 1-2 years ago since hyundai elantra right now with their 1.8L 6 speed leads in all categories and is ranked #1 right now and is hard to come by on dealers lots. By the way, GM in 2007 had a 4 speed tranny in their 5.3L V8, not 5 speed, and combined with their wimpy 3.42 rear end and if lucky to get the 3.73 rear axle ratio, was barely adequate.
I thought ford brought out the Eco-boost as thier saving grace to meet Federal Regulations. Can’t everyone see that GM can live on taxpayers money, so they can invest in every technology and research all areas of a vehicle and if the gamble doesn’t work they simply get another bailout, if it does work than they outsell the competition and see returns on technology they couldn’t afford (without government help) to begin with. If these new technologies need repairs and are covered under warranty, GM takes the loss and gets yet another bailout. If they outsell all competition and have no warranty claims to speak of (highly doubtful) then the US government comes out smelling like a rose and pushes Toyota, Nissan, and any other “foreign” automaker out. I find it sketchy that all the new Regulations were timed with the bailouts and will affectively push the cost to meet the regulations to the consumer, unless you have a general fund to absorb that cost like that of the US treasury.
Brian – You make a good point that Toyota really isn’t in a position to let Ford/GM gain the techno advantage. However, an 8 speed transmission could backfire on Ford/GM too…if they’re not as durable as the 6 speeds, they could really take a hit. That’s why I’m not convinced Toyota will jump out with an 8 speed right away. Still, you very well could be right. 🙂
mk – Agreed – Toyota has been slow to upgrade transmissions.
Anon – EcoBoost is the first step in fuel economy. The 8 speed, direct injection, start-stop, electric steering, etc. – all these things will be on an F150 sooner or later because Ford has a giant fleet of trucks that they have to make more efficient.
I hear what you’re saying about the timing of these new regs and the bailout too – Ford definitely got the short end of the stick, and it’s interesting to wonder if G.M. has more political pull…
Ecoboost has nothing to do with fuel economy. It’s about power. Turbo boost does not create economy. It pressurizes the intake so more fuel can be burned. The economy comes when the turbos are not in play and you can get that with a plain V6 without turbos. The turbos are there to match the torque of the big V8s for pulling power.
Ford is trying to fool the foolish consumer into thinking they can get the same thing with a V6 that they can get with a pushrod V8. An Ecoboost motor routinely being used for heavy hauling will disintegrate. That why it’s not on the F250. The Feds don’t include the F250 into the fleet milage numbers and for good reason.
There is catch. You only get that big V8 torque/power with a V6 at high RPM with high turbo pressure so the computer can run the injectors longer. The only time this is needed is when pulling heavy loads or racing. Trucks racing, that makes less sense then the turbos. These gas turbos are not the same as those on diesels. Gas turbos 10,000 RPM plus, diesel turbos 4000 max.
This is not the place for a small V6, the turbos won’t hold up and the first failure will eat up any savings over a V8. For heavy use the V8 or diesel will cost less over the life of the truck. Why not put an Indy 500 motor in a truck and run it at 12000 RPM? It will work just fine,,,,,,,,,, for about 5 hours.
When you look at the sticker of a Ram 2500 of F250 you will see that fuel economy numbers are not required. These are industrial rated trucks and are exempt from this nonsense.
Titan, Tundra, F150 and Ram 1500 are light weigh truck and fall under the thumb of the Feds who are screwing everything up. In 10 years these light trucks will be so fragile they won’t be wroth looking at. They are becoming a replacement for the family station wagon of the 60s.
As for the 8 speed trans, Toyota will have no choice it will be announced with in 18 months.
are you nuts ? [edit – jim started vomiting at the keyboard after this, so I just deleted the rest of his comment – Jason]
People in the US seem to think 350 HP is not enough.
Manufactures have a choice. Big heavy 6.0L V8 or small 3.0L V6.
Power comes from burning fuel, if this statement is BS,,,,, educate me. The big engines can burn more fuel then the V6. So to get the light V6 to make more power we turbo charger it. Air is forced into the engine by a fan. The V6 can now burn more fuel because the injectors can stay open longer. The turbo essentially turns the V6 into a V8 but, it can only do the work at high RPM and it is a lighter motor. Since there is 3.0L less volume they only way to get more air in to burn more fuel is turbo pressure and higher RPM which artificially increases the volume of the engine.
GM and RAM stayed with the big V8. To cut power at cruise, they cut off fuel to 4 cylinders. They turn the 6.0L motor into a 3.0L motor, it’s still heave, but under full load it generates its power at low RPM. If the cylinders all stay active you can’t just cut back the fuel because it goes into a lean burn condition and the cylinder/head temperatures will rise. EGR helps a bit but, it only allows us to cut fuel a modest amount.
Which will last longer under heavy load, a V6 at 5000 RPM or a V8 at 2500 RPM?
The EcoBoost motor does not have turbos to conserve fuel. The point of EcoBoost is to burn more fuel but still keep the engine light. Since it’s a V6 when the turbos are not providing pressure it can consume less fuel. Now,,,, how many people are going to drive a turbo around with a light foot?
The Ford non-turbo V6 has a higher EPA millage rating then the EcoBoost turbo V6. The point of the turbos is to burn more fuel. The non- turbo can’t build as much power since it can’t burn as much fuel. It will have less pulling power and must pull slower.
My 3.0 gutless V6 T100 gets 19MPG but it only gets 12 when it’s way over loaded. My Toyota can’t burn as much fuel as a Ford turbo V6 and it can’t pull as much. So under heave load going up a grade I get 12 at 35 MPH when the turbo EcoBoost will go 70 while getting 7MPG. My engine is also 18 years old and all original. No turbos to fail.
Why is the V6 EcoBoost not an option on the 6000 pound F250?
The point of EcoBoost is not to conserve fuel, but to consume it. If people want to save on fuel they need to accept a smaller engine and put up with going slower.
We can put a 1000 HP turbo 2.5L race motor in a truck. It will have enough power. How long will it last?
Ford, Ram, GM now have 2 truck lines, consumer trucks which the EPA says must achieve certain millage number and industrial trucks which are exempt for these stupid laws. The EcoBoost is there to fool people into thinking they can have both. Will the lighter trucks remain durable for heave use? How long with the EcoBoost F150 last for a contractor who tows a 10000 pound fork lift around on a regular basis.
Which part of this is inaccurate?
take your head out of your ass you still are a babbling idiot that has no idea what you’re talking about
Larry – I’ve read a lot of your comments and I really appreciate everything you’re bringing to the site. Very smart, very educated comments.
However, I’d argue that you’re making a very technical argument when you say that the EcoBoost engines aren’t about fuel economy…it’s true that they burn more fuel than a N.A. V6, and it’s also true that they’re not terribly efficient compared to a V8 under load. Still, the point is to give truck owners a tool that acts like a V6 when “empty” and offers the power of a V8 when loaded.
TO be clear: I agree that there’s some nonsense going on here, as the logic of buying a more costly and inherently less reliable turbocharged V6 is dubious. I also understand and agree with your technical points.
Still, it’s not *just* a question of technical efficiency. If the average consumer (who isn’t always rational I must point out) buys a turbo V6 instead of a thirsty V8, they’ll use a little less fuel. That’s a fuel savings.
I anticipate that Toyota will offer some sort of turbocharged, direct injection engine in the Tundra/Tacoma at some point to try and achieve similar results (I thought we’d see that engine in the 2014 Tacoma, but I guess not…probably next year). As a practical matter, turbocharging smaller displacement motors saves fuel over a vehicle’s life.
Of course GM has more political pull simply because they are owned by the fed. govt. still and not 100% independent until they pay back 100% of the bailout instead of giving raises and bonuses to the 1,000’s of execs not worth a hill of beans. I had an opportunity back in the mid 90’s to go to a class at GM headquarters in Detroit MI. Let me tell you, that place was 1st class with all the trimmings and steak and seafood and all the best just for a weekly training class I attended with hotels being first class as well. There are more execs at GM doing nothing to earn their 250K per year or more and is a waste of money for sure. Back on subject, I would think toyota would get all their lineup like the RAV4 and corolla’s, etc. into a standardized 6 speed tranny before they come out with an all new 8 speed tranny in their trucks. Toyota is now behind the times when it comes to trannies and the big 3 and Hyundai are surpassing them in 2012 that is for sure.
[…] New Feature I Learned About My Car Ford, Ram, and Now GM Bringing 8 Speeds to 2013/2014 Trucks – Will Toyota Follow? | Tundra Hea… Here we go […]
The article says no 8 speeds in pickups. I read that the Ram now has an 8 speed with its Pentastar or did I misunderstand that. I know 8 speeds are prevalent throughout Chrysler’s auto line.
This stuff is getting scary.
8 speed automatic transmissions. Fully automatic 4WD systems (which are more trouble then they are worth). High RPM large V6 motors with variable valve timing, high pressure fuel rails, dual turbos which unlike on a diesel spin as 10000 RPM. What can spin at 10000 RPM and last 10 years?
How many electric motors have been added to these trucks over the years. Servos to control the front differential, motors on each window, motors for steering, pumps to move fluid to the transmission to warm it up. Servos to activate locking differentials. Servos to open and close flaps to control radiator air flow on the new Ram. Automatic shutdown and restart on the Ram requiring a tougher starter motor. Electric motors to move the seat up,down, forward and back. How much will it cost to replace the turbos on the F150 at 140,000 miles or 7 years? 4000 dollars by the year 2020? Air conditioned seats on the F150. Lets not even go into the complexity of a locking torque converter which can handle an 8 speed transmission with a motor having 350 foot pounds of torque towing a 10000 load up a 15 mile grade in the rockies. What was wrong with the idea of a good old fashion clutch? Every new device is a repair waiting to be paid for. Screw the new milage ratings and give me a basic work truck. These new trucks might use a bit less fuel but the owner is not going to save a dime after paying to keep all this junk operational.
I don’t know what these things are but they sure aren’t trucks.
How long will these setups run before overhaul is required and at what cost. At dealer shop rates, the old V8s will likely cost less in the long run.
It’s almost impossible to find a basic work truck.
I want a work truck with a 3L diesel and 6 speed manual transmission which will get 25 MPG and run for 250,000 miles without having to overload my home equity loan to keep it repaired.
—-
I would like to replace my 18 year old 4WD T100 3.0L V6 5 speed manual trans standard cab 8 foot bed. But, after 18 years and 180,000 miles it still gets 19 MPG and the only repairs have been to replace the timing belt, muffler, and front rotors.
There is no truck on the market in 2013 which can come even close to what I got when I got my new T100 back in 1994 at a price of 17000. It has never been fast but, always gets the job done.
The only thing available now is a 4WD leather sofa for 40,000 dollars.
Larry, you are right on the mark.
We need a small light diesel work truck with an 8 foot bed. Not an 8 liter 800 foot/lb 7000 pound beast.
People don’t understand diesel. They don’t work with 4 speed automatics because of the small RPM range. A diesel is not going to rev up and make a high speed pass on the highway. It’s job is to run the same speed all the time while using very little fuel at low RPM and do it for 1 million miles. People will just not stop talking about 0-60 times. How stupid is that for a truck.
A 4500 pound truck with a 3.0L diesel and 6 speed manual trans could cruse at 27-28 MPG and do it for 20 years.
These kinds of trucks are available all over the world but not here in the US. No wonder we are dying economically. We get stuck with 6 liter gas motors, 5000 dollars of extra automatic crap which tells us one of our tires is low and then 7500 dollars in repair bills over the next 10 years.
Some one needs to build a real truck which can do real work at the lowest total cost of operation possible. I am really tired of reading all the reviews on how one truck is prettier or rides smoother then the other. What a load of crap.
Keep posting, you are about the only one who makes any sense.
Larry – It’s hard to argue with you here – agree that a basic, simple truck with a good quality diesel would be affordable, durable, and powerful enough for most uses.
To be honest (and I say this at the risk of irritating a lot of people who read the site), I think the reason that we don’t see practical trucks like this is that new truck consumers are generally very well off. Many of them are looking for a practical luxury vehicle (and yes I’m aware that’s a contradiction), and as a result they want trucks that have soft leather, lots of buttons and gadgets, etc.
I’ve written a lot about the irrational nature of vehicle buyers (myself included), and I don’t see it changing. Truck consumers are going to keep on doing what they’ve been doing for 30 years: asking for the latest technology, demanding that their trucks ride and handle more like cars, and expecting that each new truck will haul more and get better fuel economy than the last. It’s not logical, but it’s the pattern we see over and over again…
Like I have said elsewhere, I guess I am “well-off” since I want a truck that rides like a car with the bed to store stuff. Essentially, I am fighting buying the mini-van. LOL!
Jason and Larry are both right, though. Truck makers should do a better job with their base grade for “work” truck buyers and leave the “luxury” packages for “well-off” guys like me!
-Tim