Anybody remember when car companies were distinct entities?

[Dave@Moon]

From The Cincinnati Enquirer:

<span style="font-weight: bold">Ford puts $200M in plant here</span>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gears for six-speed part of deal with GM

By Mike Boyer

The Cincinnati Enquirer

Ford Motor Co. Monday said it will invest about $200 million in its Sharonville transmission plant as part of its first collaboration with rival General Motors Corp. to develop a more fuel-efficient, six-speed, front-wheel-drive transmission.

The Sharonville investment, the second by Ford there in the last five months, won't mean new jobs but it will protect about 250 of the 2,200 now employed there.

It's a bright spot for Sharonville, especially if it means more work is behind it,'' said Thomas "Whitey'' Klein, president of United Auto Workers Local 863 at the plant.

Ford has designated the 2.4-million-square-foot Sharonville plant, once slated for closing in the mid-1980s, as a center for gear machining as it moves from four-speed to six-speed transmissions on its vehicles.

Taking on such a project alone would have cost either company as much as $1 billion, said Tom Stephens, GM's group vice president for powertrains. By working together, Ford and GM will reduce development time by several months and save roughly a quarter-billion dollars, he said.

Ford and GM have sold each others' parts and had other minimal business relationships through the years, but this marks the first time they have joined on such a broad program.

The companies are making the move because "six-speeds are the future,'' said Dave Szczupak, Ford's vice president for powertrain operations. "They help to optimize power, smooth operation and fuel economy.''

Ford and GM say the new six-speed automatic gearbox should produce 4 percent better gas mileage than today's four-speeds.

The transmission will start production in 2006 for 2007 model year Ford "crossover" vehicles and GMC SUVs. The companies didn't specify which of their models would get the new gearboxes.

"Today, less than 1 percent of all cars are equipped with six-speed transmissions, but by 2010, up to 15 percent of all U.S. cars will be equipped with six-speeds,'' Ford spokesman Joe Koenig said.

Last November, Ford announced a $155 million investment at the Sharonville plant to make gears for a new rear-drive six-speed automatic transmission. It will appear on cars next year.

Hamilton County and Sharonville city officials approved a 10-year tax abatement for that project, saving the automaker up to $1.3 million in annual personal property taxes. Ford's 2004 property tax bill for its Sharonville property is $515,700.

Although no abatement has been approved for the new investment, Koenig said the company is discussing its needs with officials.

"This investment couldn't be made without the relationship we have with the county and Sharonville officials,'' he said.

Ford and GM announced in 2002 that they were going to collaborate on the design and engineering of the new transmission. The giant automakers said they would produce the new gearbox separately.

GM said it would invest $350 million to produce the new transmission at its Warren, Mich., plant. Ford said it would spend $370 million at its Sharonville and Sterling Heights, Mich., plants.

Sharonville will cut gears on a new machining line and ship them to the Michigan plant, where the transmissions will be assembled.

[NTX5467]

Car companies, "Yes". Oil companies, "Yes". Appliance companies, "Yes". Tire companies, "Yes". Air filter, oil filter, and spark plug companies, "Yes". Lots of things used to be free-standing business entities that are now part of conglomerates. Some were good synergistic combinations and others suited the power orientations of CEOs or whomever. Some were big buying out little, but keeping the little brand and expanding it product and innovation wise, which made good chemistry for those products.

Somehow, I suspect we might have been better off with the "old way" sometimes, but the key is where the economies of scale really worked to make a better entity rather than "The Biggest __________".

For the record, the New Process Gear company, which built 4 wheel drive transfer cases and the old "Granny Gear" truck 4-speeds was a joint venture, even back then. Several other such joint ventures have been around in more recent times, such as the GM-Toyota NUMMI production facility in CA that built the latter-day Chevy Nova and other GEO vehicles. Not quite the same thing as GMPowertrain selling 5-speed automatics to BMW for their 3-series cars.

On that new 6-speed joint venture automatic, I wonder what they'll use for ATF? Dexron III, Mercon V, or something else?

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Buicks Rule]

Well, folks it isn't the first time GM and Ford have shared parts. One of the manual trannys used in sixties GTO's is actually a FORD unit. And, we all remember the time when Lincoln bought Hydramatics from GM in the early 50's. Lincoln even advertised the Hydramatic in their cars, but I don't remember Pontiac telling the world about their Ford tranny.

[BigFella]

and it's nice to see investment and jobs staying here in the US and not going to Mexico or some other country...

[Bill Stoneberg]

They are trying to compete with the overseas car manufacturers who are now working on a 7 speed transmission. When do we get back to the Dynaflow days of no gears ? The day is coming.

I am happy to see Ford and GM working together. If this would have happened earlier, maybe we wouldn't have everyone driving a Toyota.

Consolidation has and is happening everywhere. If you go to a restarant it is probably owned by a large conglomerate. Pillsbury owns Burger King for example.

[brad54]

At one point, some Chevy trucks came with Mopar A-833 4-speed overdrive trannies.

My thoughts? Shrug.

-Brad

[Guest elk93001]

Did Rolls-Royce ever use Hydramatics behind their engines?

Also, some older Mercedes and others have used Harrison compressors built by GM, if I'm not mistaken.

I guess all I have to say is that I hope the following are true:

1.That is is a good product and reliable

2. That cost savings could be passed on to the consumer

3. That it is good for both companies and its employees, which would ultimately be good for our country.

We'll see.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When do we get back to the Dynaflow days of no gears ? The day is coming.</div></div>

I wonder if the CVT will ever be mainstreamed? No gears, unlimited ratios. But, it seems to be an "also-ran" technology so far. Anyone out there driven one?

In the real old days, Dodge Bros. made parts for other manufacturers before they started making their own cars. Perhaps that's why their early cars were such tanks... they knew what they were supplying to others, and wanted to outdo them in their own vehicles!?

"Distinct Entities" has kind of always been a matter of degree, I think, depending on the prevailing market realities. Independents and later AMC bought lots of stuff from the Big 3 parts suppliers, yet maintained their own distinct vehicle identities, possibly moreso than the big corporations could, with their many models from different divisions based on similar "platforms."

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When do we get back to the Dynaflow days of no gears ? The day is coming.

</div></div>

I think I read a while ago that Honda was offering a trans like Dynaflow. Is this true??

[NTX5467]

The CVT has been around since the early '60s or somewhere back then, but it was in a lower powered little car in Holland (DAF?). The main reason for it to happen again is not for performance, but efficiency.

We all know that combustion engines have a particular rpm range where they are more efficient than at other rpms. The idea of the CVT is to put the engine in a particular rpm range and keep it there as the CVT changes the gear ratios to accelerate the vehicle. At the present time, possibly the highest performance CVT is in some Audis, which tended to give little fanfare to it when they introduced their CVT a few years ago. Personally, I tend to like gears to transfer torque rather than a steel cable running between two pulleys. Undoubtedly, the science behind CVTs will progress into the future, but I don't look for it to be behind really high torque engines.

I haven't heard of the Honda deal, but Hydrostatic Drive has been around since the middle '60s and THAT's a better possibility for higher power applications. I seem to recall it has been used on some earthmoving applications, but I could be incorrect in that. Once you get the hydraulic fluid flowing to each wheel, using some of that fluid to also do the suspension job might not be far behind (HydroLastic suspension on the last year or so of the original Mini Cooper?).

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[55PackardGuy]

Hydrostatic drive is very big in farm tractors and heavy equipment. At least it was when I was driving some of that stuff in the '70s and '80s. The main advantage is you can "shift" up and down into an infinite number of "ratios" without releasing the clutch, even under power. I don't know if this does much for you in an automobile. In using heavy equipment, the throttle position is not varied much once you start working, as it's usually lever operated and set where power is sufficient to do the job. The hydrostatic drive lets you change vehicle speed without changing the throttle setting, and to change direction quickly from forward to reverse--a big timesaver when moving back and forth to push dirt or dump loads, but not much of an advantage in a car, it seems.

The CVT would be kind of a strange experience to drive, I think, because the engine speed would not give an indication of vehicle speed. That's one reason I asked for an impression from someone who's driven one. Like Packard said, "Ask the man who owns one."

[Dave@Moon]

Car manufacturers purchasing components from each other (particularly when they have no or inadequate capacity to make it themselves) is one thing. Admittedly that's been done since the industry began. This is different. Ford didn't develop a four speed transmission for Pontiac. GM didn't develop Delco-Remy ignition with Packard in mind. These were components that were purchased and adapted to other vehicles.

Nobody to my memory has ever built or refurbished a factory with the intent of using that asset to produce a competitor's product, until now! Here we have Ford constructing a facility where the pre-determined/intended purpose is to make gears for a G.M. transmission. This is a new threshold.

I'm not sure what to make of it myself, but it bothers me that this line has been crossed for some reason.

[Rawja]

Per the article you started this thread with, the companies shared development and engineering costs (including re-tooling of plants, the total spending for this new transmission between the two companies is over a billion dollars ). The transmissions will be produced individually by the automakers in each of their own plants, and in Automotive News it is reported that in acutality the transmissions will share 80% common parts with the competitor's version of the transmission.

This is probably a good idea, spreading out the costs and speeding up the development times.

This is not without precedent in the industry. I recall in the early nineties, European automakers collaborated on engineering and design for an entire vehicle platform in order to defray and share the enormous costs associated with producing an all new car. I believe Saab, Lancia, Fiat, Peugeot, Citroen and Alfa Romeo models were all built on a common platform.