[KrisW]

Blaming ZF does no good. FCA chose them as a supplier. once you chose a supplier, their issues become your issues.
FCA also made certain decisions that amplified the 9 speed issues.

There’s a tendency on here to assume that the reason why the 9-speed had customer problems was because FCA modified it - that’s not true, and it’s frequently used to build a narrative that FCA cost-cuts itself into problems. The 8HP was similarly modified, and I don’t hear complaints about that.

It’s true that a supplier’s issues are your issues, but to blame the final manufacturer for the failure of that supplier to resolve those problems, when only the supplier could have resolved them, is playing a bit too dumb on a forum populated by people who are enthusiasts and know a bit more than Average Joe about how the car industry works.

For the record, yes, it hurt FCA’s reputation, not ZF’s, but that doesn’t make the root cause FCA’s. ZF was a trusted supplier with a proven track record from the 8HP series, a transmission that FCA also modified under license to great success. Applying hindsight to what was a sound decision at the time based on the available evidence is just moaning.

 

[valiant67]

There’s a tendency on here to assume that the reason why the 9-speed had customer problems was because FCA modified it - that’s not true, and it’s frequently used to build a narrative that FCA cost-cuts itself into problems. The 8HP was similarly modified, and I don’t hear complaints about that.

It’s true that a supplier’s issues are your issues, but to blame the final manufacturer for the failure of that supplier to resolve those problems, when only the supplier could have resolved them, is playing a bit too dumb on a forum populated by people who are enthusiasts and know a bit more than Average Joe about how the car industry works.

For the record, yes, it hurt FCA’s reputation, not ZF’s, but that doesn’t make the root cause FCA’s. ZF was a trusted supplier with a proven track record from the 8HP series, a transmission that FCA also modified under license to great success. Applying hindsight to what was a sound decision at the time based on the available evidence is just moaning.

I know how industries work, You make assumptions and we know that that means.
If a supplier has a problem you get them to fix it or you find another supplier. It really is just that simple, though lead times are longer in some industries. And you take the blame rather than attempting to deflect blame. That's what integrity is. Chrysler has long been associated with poor transmissions among the FWD products going back decades, right or wrong, and the 9 speed simply confirmed this reputation to many purchasers.

 

[valiant67]

For those not familiar, there has been a lot of bragging about World Class manufacturing (WCM) at FCA (And I assume continuing with Stellantis).
Part of WCM is root cause analysis. You don't stop root cause analysis process simply because you trace the problem to a supplier. You identify the problem and fix it. Or you're just using WCM certification as a trophy, not a way of business.

 

[KrisW]

I know how industries work, You make assumptions and we know that that means.
If a supplier has a problem you get them to fix it or you find another supplier. It really is just that simple, though lead times are longer in some industries. And you take the blame rather than attempting to deflect blame. That's what integrity is. Chrysler has long been associated with poor transmissions among the FWD products going back decades, right or wrong, and the 9 speed simply confirmed this reputation to many purchasers.

I guess you misread my post, because I say that the people on this forum generally do have a good idea of how the industry works.

Dropping a key component supplier is not trivial when you’ve built them into your plans for high production volumes. The 9-speed did work as intended, but when customers drove the cars they didn’t like the knocking sensation caused by the dog-gears. That’s not something you can easily predict ahead of time, and when you’ve got a million cars lined up to use it, you do not just drop your transmission supplier and go look for another one. Given that Chrysler was manufacturing these transmissions in-house, the lead times and loss of investment involved with finding a replacement would have been crippling.

Again, I don’t dispute that the reputational damage accrued to Chrysler, but in this specific case, it was the supplier at the root of the problem, not FCA . But FCA didn’t tell customers it was ZF’s fault; they tried to fix the problems.

I don’t know why you imply that WCM processes were ignored here, because both FCA and ZF made several updates to the transmission software and components to minimise the effect of the dog-gear changes. But ultimately, that knocking is a characteristic of how the transmission was designed, just as much as a whine is a characteristic of a CVT.

 

[serpens]

I guess you misread my post, because I say that the people on this forum generally do have a good idea of how the industry works.

Dropping a key component supplier is not trivial when you’ve built them into your plans for high production volumes. The 9-speed did work as intended, but when customers drove the cars they didn’t like the knocking sensation caused by the dog-gears. That’s not something you can easily predict ahead of time, and when you’ve got a million cars lined up to use it, you do not just drop your transmission supplier and go look for another one. Given that Chrysler was manufacturing these transmissions in-house, the lead times and loss of investment involved with finding a replacement would have been crippling.

Again, I don’t dispute that the reputational damage accrued to Chrysler, but in this specific case, it was the supplier at the root of the problem, not FCA . But FCA didn’t tell customers it was ZF’s fault; they tried to fix the problems.

Such a shame they got suckered into using that ZF 9-speed design. Volvo rejected it and switched to Aisin during development of their current crop of vehicles.

 

[KrisW]

Volvo had the luxury of seeing how FCA and Jaguar LandRover got on with the 9-Speed before committing to it. They were also purchasing from ZF, rather than building under license, which made for less of a loss from walking away.

 

[T_690]

I know how industries work, You make assumptions and we know that that means.
If a supplier has a problem you get them to fix it or you find another supplier. It really is just that simple, though lead times are longer in some industries. And you take the blame rather than attempting to deflect blame. That's what integrity is. Chrysler has long been associated with poor transmissions among the FWD products going back decades, right or wrong, and the 9 speed simply confirmed this reputation to many purchasers.

So...

For example. Aisin is able to build so many transmissions or maybe they are willing to let FCA to build it?

 

[T_690]

Such a shame they got suckered into using that ZF 9-speed design. Volvo rejected it and switched to Aisin during development of their current crop of vehicles.

BMW... AFAIK is another which walked away

But FCA's issue is need to build a transmission under a licence. AFAIK Aisin isn't willing to do so.

 

[valiant67]

I don’t know why you imply that WCM processes were ignored here, because both FCA and ZF made several updates to the transmission software and components to minimise the effect of the dog-gear changes. But ultimately, that knocking is a characteristic of how the transmission was designed, just as much as a whine is a characteristic of a CVT.

First, if the shortcoming of the 9 speed weren't uncovered during testing, the testing process is deeply flawed.
Second, if an assumption was made that these "strange shifts" were OK, the people making those types of decisions are obviously out of touch with the target market.
Third, it's not just the dog-clutch shifts that are the problem Other shifts are rough and jolting, slow engagement, the list continues.
Everything below is my assumption:
Decisions were made by those who didn't know the target market or were more concerned with costs that customer satisfaction. ZF even tried blaming American drivers for the issues.

 

[valiant67]

So...

For example. Aisin is able to build so many transmissions or maybe they are willing to let FCA to build it?

Irrelevant to 9 speed discussion.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

As was reported here on Allpar, a component was changed by FCA.

(3) Is Fixing the 9 Speeds Just a “Snap?” | Allpar Forums

Secondly, @Mr.Source reported that FCA requested changes to hardware and software that led to problems.

So, the whitewashing of the truth will not work. We have the documented history and testimony from people who are inside the company.

People making excuses need to stop.

 

[KrisW]

I base my reasoning on observed evidence, not what some people say on the internet - that particular source is high on complaints and low on actual information. On the other hand, the article you quote specifically says that Land Rover experienced the exact same issue as FCA. If changes made by FCA led to the problems, explain to me how other 9-Speed customer had that same problem. Did FCA go and sabotage their transmissions too?

There are two facts: 1. FCA changed the design. 2. The transmission had problems. There is no proof for is that the first caused the second, however much you may wish it.
In contrast, there’s a lot of evidence that a series of changes made by FCA reduced the impact of the problems with this transmission.

“Whitewashing of the truth” would be the denial of the possibility that there were competent people working in FCA who were trying to get out of a very difficult situation.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

FCA US completes 1 millionth 9-speed transmission - Today's Motor Vehicles (todaysmotorvehicles.com)

The FCA ZF 9-speed shares almost no components with the ZF-supplied 9-speed.

Ray's Garage: ZF 9HP48 and Chrysler 948TE - YouTube

So let us end this charade that the problems belong to ZF. Yes, the ZF supplied units had trouble, but FCA, under license, changed almost every component.

 

[KrisW]

FCA has also “changed every component” of the 8HP, but that was a good design, and so the FCA version carries the same positive qualities as its ZF cousin.

Changing components does not change the fundamental design of the transmission, which is what FCA licensed from ZF, and is responsible for the rough-shifting issues reported by every single user. If you don’t understand the distinction between design and implementation, there’s no point in continuing.

 

[Adventurer55]

What no one seems to get is it's another blown opportunity for Chrysler to shed it's lousy transmission image. It WAS beginning to subside after the ultradrive and Cummins backed failures, but they shot themselves in the foot, AGAIN. I've driven vehicles with this unit, and it's not a fun drive especially behind the four cylinder. It hunts constantly, and never seems happy in whatever gear it's in. The 8 sp. rear drive unit is light years ahead of this abomination, I don't care which company made it.

 

[serpens]

What no one seems to get is it's another blown opportunity for Chrysler to shed it's lousy transmission image. It WAS beginning to subside after the ultradrive and Cummins backed failures, but they shot themselves in the foot, AGAIN. I've driven vehicles with this unit, and it's not a fun drive especially behind the four cylinder. It hunts constantly, and never seems happy in whatever gear it's in. The 8 sp. rear drive unit is light years ahead of this abomination, I don't care which company made it.

On the contrary, I don’t think that was lost on anyone.

 

[Adventurer55]

Oh, I forgot it was only lost on the executives inside the tech center.

 

[David S]

Irrelevant to 9 speed discussion.

Just drop small wide and put it on EMP2 with the Aisin 8 speed. We've already waited a decade, what's another year or two?

 

[Fast Eddie]

Dart advertising was atrocious.........some stupid comic making an [I should have my mouth washed out with soap for using such terms] of himself.

 

[Erik Latranyi]

FCA has also “changed every component” of the 8HP, but that was a good design, and so the FCA version carries the same positive qualities as its ZF cousin.

Changing components does not change the fundamental design of the transmission, which is what FCA licensed from ZF, and is responsible for the rough-shifting issues reported by every single user. If you don’t understand the distinction between design and implementation, there’s no point in continuing.

So, when FCA changes nearly every component of the crappy 9-speed, they bear no responsibility for it.
But when FCA changes nearly every component of the great 8-speed, FCA can brag and take credit.

Nice hypocrisy you have.