Maybe the 8HP51 was lightened up for fuel economy reasons over the 8HP50?
Maybe. I don't know specifically what changes they made, but from Wikipedia:
3rd generation 8HP products were released starting in 2018. Major improvements are total spread of 8.6 and a fuel economy improvement of 2.5% compared to the 2nd generation. There are several options in maximum torque available, also the gearbox is available with mild hybrid and plug in hybrid options: With 15 kW and 200 NM supporting boosting and recuperation in combination with 48 Volt technology up to 90 kW and 250 NM for usage with higher voltage.
[10]
The suggestion of electric compatibility is interesting to me - they are very heavy vehicles, and tend to put out a lot of torque. But, I just don't know enough to know what the actual differences are, other than typically when things 'evolve' they so so in a positive direction.
With all due respect to the other vehicles you list that use the trans, like the Jeep comment I made which uses the same trans, nobody uses adjectives like "robust" when describing their drivetrains so why does IG get a pass? I 100% think it will work fine, highly doubt anybody will have major issues but for me it's against the ethos of what IG has been selling until they can show some data to back up their decision.
A vehicle drivetrain is as strong as it's weakest link.
It's a transmission that has been reliably used for nearly 15 years in a wide variety of applications, including trucks. I would describe that as robust. It is a design that, with apparently minimal changes (i.e. they appear to be the same form factor) can withstand up to a thousand foot-pounds of torque. I would also describe that as robust. I don't know enough about transmissions to know the differences between the 370-foot pounds version and the 1,000 foot pounds version, but any bits they have in common would have to be robust enough for 1,000 foot pounds right?
I'm just disappointed, I would have been very impressed and would have expected IG to use the bigger trans they use on the diesel on their petrol....that IMO would have aligned with the spirit of what they have been marketing.
Fair enough, but I reckon there's always a balance. Weight, Cost, Sturdiness. If you want it strong and cheap, it's going to be heavy. If you want it light and strong, it's going to be expensive. Every decision is a compromise. I hear you in that I'd love to know more about the information that drove the compromises Ineos chose, but I have no concerns about the robustness of the ZF based on the specs that are available. Perhaps going up to the stronger one was an unacceptable cost or weight penalty? Either way this is only a problem if the one they chose isn't good enough, and I suspect it will be.
IG is ~6000 lbs with ~2000 lbs payload capacity, so GVWR is ~8000 lbs which is heavier than the heaviest GVWR of a Ram 1500....so in essence, unless I am missing something, the engine (for sure) and the trans (quite possibly) are being used in the heaviest vehicle to date?
All my blabbing about doesn't make me right, I think it just poses some logical questions....thanks for being a good sport
That's a good question - I don't know the weights of those other vehicles. I do know the ZF is electric compatible, and those things are beastly heavy, but I don't know how those compare kg to kg. And I guess that's my perspective on this whole thing -- Ineos says they are using an HD torque converter and that the ZF was chosen for it's robustness. There's only three options here:
1) They are lying, and the ZF is not robust enough for the application, and the vehicle won't perform, and that means Sir Jim has wasted a few billion bucks or whatever; I don't think that's likely.
2) They are lying or pumping a half-truth in "marketing speak" (basically like every other 4x4 manufacturer on the North American market!), and the ZF just so happens to be robust enough to not be a failure point for most people most of the time, but it's not a robust transmission in and of itself and they could have spec'd much better. But this begs two questions: If it's not failing in the application, does it matter? and secondly, if they are lying about the robustness of this particular part, they are likely lying about the robustness of other parts too, which puts us back in scenario 1) above -- there will be failures, and a few billion bucks is wasted. To create an analogy with the Jeep - the Jeep commercials always show Wranglers doing crazy cool stuff off road; donuts under overpasses in the mud, rock crawling at 100 kph, or 4 adults and a week's worth of camping gear plus kayaks all crowded into one 2-door with the roof off and a payload of only 800 lbs -- but the fine print always says that you really ought not to do that with their vehicles and if you do there's no promise of warranty coverage. In other words, selling an idea, not a tool.
3) Ineos has access to information that we don't have (or certainly that we don't have the full picture of), and they are confident in truthfully claiming that the transmission they chose passed muster for robustness and reliability and is fit for purpose. That would align with the vision -- they didn't set out to create the strongest 4x4 ever made (and if they did, yeah, your suggestion of using an uprated transmission just for the sake of it would make sense even if it would come with a cost/weight penalty as I mentioned above). Their vision was to create the most "purpose built" 4x4 on the market today.
Given what the rest of the vehicle appears to be from Ineo's promised goal - and some early journalistic interpretations are reflecting this -- the third category is the most likely reality I think.
And thank YOU nick for also being a good sport in the conversation - I always enjoy engaging with you especially when we have different perspectives as you always engage in respectful disagreement. I try to reflect the same (though tone in text can be hard -- please trust that kind, friendly discussion is always my intent!) and I've learned more about the transmission in my future rig as a result of this conversation than I have previously, so I greatly appreciate the discussion!
