Badlands 2.0 Transmission Clutch Failure

[gatornek]

Depending on driver technique, engine braking with an auto transmission should not be a cause for concern. Any gear shift--up or down--will incur wear to the clutch, with shifts requiring greater RPM change causing more wear. For example, a downshift resulting in a 2000-RPM increase will put more stress on the clutch than an upshift resulting in a 500-RPM decrease. If that doesn't make sense to you just know that downshifting has the potential to cause more wear on the clutches if the driver selects a lower gear that requires a large change in RPM--say a downshift from 7th gear to 2nd gear. Once in a lower gear, however, there is no additional stress on transmission components; you can coast downhill at 4000 RPM in 2nd gear all day long with no worry of transmission damage.

Correct. And when you add a fully loaded rooftop, I think the extreme drag forces exacerbate the same clutch wear you describe. It was always on a heavy downshift. Upshifts are not so tough on clutches.

Sponsored

 

[Mark S.]

is there a technical reason for no additional stress while coasting downhill at 4000 RPM in 2nd gear all day long?

We're talking about relative stress levels. Of course there is always SOME stress on the transmission whether the engine is driving the transmission or if the transmission is driving the engine. The level of stress, however, is the same.

It would seem like this would be stressful to the transmission, isn’t there at least additional heat generated under that condition? (as opposed to leaving it in overdrive with reduced rpm and let the brakes take the stress)

Yes, this is true--you can sacrifice your brakes to reduce overall stress on your transmission, buy why would you? Your transmission is designed to shed heat during normal operation, that is with the engine driving the transmission. Since the transmission is under no more stress during engine braking, with the transmission driving the engine, the cooling system should be more than capable of shedding heat then as well.

 

[gatornek]

I also want to reiterate to those who are only keying in on the title of the thread without taking the time to read through, is that the failure was not within the transmission clutch. The failure was EITHER a locked clutch disc within the torque converter or a failure within the valve body that kept the torque converter locked and wouldn't allow the engine to disconnect from the driveshaft. The technician only told me that he saw errors in the torque converter and in the valve body when he ran his tests and could not know for certain without tearing it apart.

If I can change the title of the thread, please advise. It seems its locked. Thanks.

 

[Dude]

I doubt there is any need to change the title of this thread. The 8F35 transmission has some number of reported issues (for Bronco Sports and other models), and some have said there are internal plastic and aluminum parts which could contribute to failures. There are Ford TSBs for the 8F35 transmission but are in other applications not related to Bronco Sports (except for Customer Satisfaction Program 22B38 affecting Bronco Sport and 5 other Ford models however this was a factory build issue over a very short 2022 timeframe and owners would have been notified by the VIN if impacted).

I also saw several years ago that there are 2.0L engine specs which exceed some 8F35 design specs but as I posted at that time i don’t think in the rpm and torque range (I don’t recall offhand exactly the exceeded specs), it is unlikely to cause issues for the 8F35. But as I also said at that time, we do not know the qualification studies and tests Ford did to determine the 2.0L suitability for use with the 8F35 and we don’t know if Ford “de-rated” the engine in real time to not exceed the 8F35 specs. Too many unknowns here to make a claim one way or the other when we don’t know the engineering Ford did specific to Bronco Sport relative to the 2.0L mated with the 8F35.

Relevant posts April 2024:
https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/bigger-engine-for-bs.10906/post-188162

https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/bigger-engine-for-bs.10906/post-188172

Alternative viewpoint from a Ford dealership mechanic:
https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/full-transmission-rebuild-at-166000kms.11767/post-198436

 

[gatornek]

I doubt there is any need to change the title of this thread. The 8F35 transmission has some number of reported issues (for Bronco Sports and other models), and some have said there are internal plastic and aluminum parts which could contribute to failures. There are Ford TSBs for the 8F35 transmission but are in other applications not related to Bronco Sports (except for Customer Satisfaction Program 22B38 affecting Bronco Sport and 5 other Ford models however this was a factory build issue over a very short 2022 timeframe and owners would have been notified by the VIN if impacted).

I also saw several years ago that there are 2.0L engine specs which exceed some 8F35 design specs but as I posted at that time i don’t think in the rpm and torque range (I don’t recall offhand exactly the exceeded specs), it is unlikely to cause issues for the 8F35. But as I also said at that time, we do not know the qualification studies and tests Ford did to determine the 2.0L suitability for use with the 8F35 and we don’t know if Ford “de-rated” the engine in real time to not exceed the 8F35 specs. Too many unknowns here to make a claim one way or the other when we don’t know the engineering Ford did specific to Bronco Sport relative to the 2.0L mated with the 8F35.

Relevant posts April 2024:
https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/bigger-engine-for-bs.10906/post-188162

https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/bigger-engine-for-bs.10906/post-188172

Alternative viewpoint from a Ford dealership mechanic:
https://www.broncosportforum.com/forum/threads/full-transmission-rebuild-at-166000kms.11767/post-198436

I agree with all of this. Just wanted to put it out there. I am very dubious to the timing of a "fully loaded two week trip", in the hot Florida summer, where I was offroading in National Forests and at the same time also getting up to 90 miles an hour on the highway, and then a transmission failure almost a week later to the tee, and in the week in between actually noticing a stark decrease in mpg (another symptom of a bad torque converter). It seems too coincidental. Again, adding in the factor of a fully loaded roofrack, and aftermarket wheels.

All this is essentially food for thought for the rest of you. Like I said, I'm going to try and get this guy paid off in the next year or so, and then Im exiting stage left.

 

[Dude]

… and in the week in between actually noticing a stark decrease in mpg (another symptom of a bad torque converter). It seems too coincidental. Again, adding in the factor of a fully loaded roofrack, and aftermarket wheels.

Ahhh I missed your earlier posts about the decrease in mpg so went back to reread your posts … I do see “I even thought it better on gas” but have not yet seen more info (I did skim over posts) … can you please elaborate more on how much of a decrease in mpg you experienced prior to the beginning of the transmission issues? That’s also interesting and I missed that aspect

 

[gatornek]

Ahhh I missed your earlier posts about the decrease in mpg so went back to reread your posts … I do see “I even thought it better on gas” but have not yet seen more info (I did skim over posts) … can you please elaborate more on how much of a decrease in mpg you experienced prior to the beginning of the transmission issues? That’s also interesting and I missed that aspect

The "even thought it better on gas" was a description of just constantly being in cruise control over the past year or so; BEFORE anything was noticed with this issue.

I started noticing the stark decrease in mileage somewhere on the drive back home from the trip. I initially chalked it up to the fast speeds on the Turnpike along with a fully loaded car/rack. But it continued even after I unloaded everything and took the rack down. About 4 or 5 days later, is when the first stall out happened.

 

[gatornek]

I had a Chevy with that issue. There is a solinoid that pushes a pin that makes a mechanical connection between the plates in the transmission to get better highway mileage. The pin was sticking and not allowing the plates to disingage. It was less than $300 to fix. Hopefully, yours will be something simple. But, these new vehicles are very complicated, and I don't pretend to understand how the transmission works.

Sorry. I think I missed this post. This is probably spot on to what happend. The only difference is since it was under warranty, they replaced the ENTIRE transmission.

Was there any thought of what was the culprit to your situation?

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

Unfortunately I think you were just unlucky with this transmission. I'm really glad I got the 2.0L, I see very few powertrain problems posted here compared to the 1.5L.

At least it failed under warranty!

What Power Train problems have you seen on here with the 1.5L that the 2.0L doesn't have?And don't they the 1.5L and the 2.0L use the same transmission? And FWIW the majority of the BS's have the 1.5L engine in them.

 

[gatornek]

What Power Train problems have you seen on here with the 1.5L that the 2.0L doesn't have?And don't they the 1.5L and the 2.0L use the same transmission? And FWIW the majority of the BS's have the 1.5L engine in them.

And FWIW, I don't think the 1.5's have to be concerned with this particular issue. My entire theory is much of this is due to the peak torque of the 2.0 vs what the 8F35 is designed for. I just feel those numbers are too close for comfort.

 

[Mark S.]

I just feel those numbers are too close for comfort.

We are five years into production and as far as I know there are no reports of widespread failures with this engine/transmission combination. Seems like five years is plenty of time for such problems to manifest.

 

[gatornek]

We are five years into production and as far as I know there are no reports of widespread failures with this engine/transmission combination. Seems like five years is plenty of time to such problems to manifest.

I'd agree with your premise; then tell you "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on ME" ?‍

Don't know what else to tell you. I brought you all the information on my pain. If you want to just let it go in one ear and out the other, feel free. That is your right.

I'm just trying to document an issue, that many people who don't go to bulletin boards wouldn't.?‍

 

[Mark S.]

I'm just trying to document an issue, that many people who don't go to bulletin boards wouldn't.?‍

I'm not denigrating your experience, only noting that it is rare.

 

[gatornek]

@Dude
I appreciate all the info. I didn't know it was this well discussed before I opened my thread. However, I did spend time going through all these posts, and as far as I can tell, there is no rock solid conclusion to be had.

But I do want to stress that the engine being "de-rated" is a non-starter. I spoke with Cobb and the dyno results that they provided on their stock Badlands are their own tests. Cobb is way too reputable and would have zero incentive to overestimate the stock results since the whole selling point is the increase in power.

The Badlands is a niche vehicle. It makes up a small percentage of the assorted BS models. It wouldn't be wild to think that Ford cut a corner here. Did I have bad luck? Yes. Am I going to ignore this moving forward? No.

Thank you for the links. Good info.

Sponsored