GT350 Tremec TR3160

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
I've been trying to unearth some data on the transmission this car will be using and have picked up a few scattered bits and pieces. The cases shown below are indeed 3160 variants as used in other applications.


_Tremec3160photossmallerversion.jpg




Jamal Hameedi commented that the 3160 has been "modified fairly significantly to cope with the demands of the flat plane crank engine." Until more data is released on what those modifications are we can at least attempt to become more familiar with the transmission design. Obviously, Coyote/MT82 and Trinity/TR6060 owners are paying very close attention to Ford's choice regarding this gearbox. No doubt, torque capacity and shift feel or quality are primary concerns.



DESCRIPTION

The TR3160 six speed transmission was designed to be used in light truck, SUV, and performance applications. It can be configured as either single or double overdrive. Centerline distance (the distance between the input shaft and the countershaft) is 81mm. This dimension is what typically drives torque capacity, hence its relevance here. A higher number means greater strength potential with respect to torque load as larger diameter gears can be used. Each gear (and shaft) is of SAE 4120H steel. All gears are hard finished with laser welded clutch teeth.

The aluminum cased TR3160 weighs 112lbs (dry, with "mass reduction") and is an end load design. Externally, the unit consists of an integral clutch housing, main case, and tailshaft housing. Lubrication is not internally pressurized but rather is "splash." To date, TR3160 units do not come equipped with external cooler fittings, etc. The multiple shift rail system allows for both direct mount or semi-remote shifters (look closely at the photos above and you'll see case ears for a semi-remote as well as a casting boss for a direct mounted shifter). Tremec claims to have given this transmission a lot of attention with respect to the detent system as well. The detent notches, springs, and bullets, have been designed to allow the best feel possible in terms of shift quality. Coupled with low friction linear shift rail bearings, the potential for smooth gear shifting is definitely there. Low friction "Dexron" fluid is required.



HIGHLIGHTS

Double and triple cone synchronizers feature hybrid as well as sintered bronze friction material. They are the same size as used in the TR6060 transmission. As Tremec puts it "the greater the friction surface, the easier the transmission is to shift." First and second gear synchros are triple cone while the remaining gears (including reverse) are double cone. The cone rings use what is referred to as a hybrid arrangement since one side uses a carbon friction material and the other side uses sintered bronze. Also at play on the 3160 is a "reverse inhibiting solenoid" system that prevents shifting into reverse if the vehicle is moving forward at 3 mph or higher.




It'll be very interesting to see what changes are in store for the version of the TR3160 that Tremec produces. The key to a high torque figure (in concert with the above) is a low numerical first gear ratio. The highest torque rating I have seen to date from Tremec on this transmission was less than 425 Ft-Lb of torque. I'd be surprised to see that number grow by much, if at all, in this application. This means there may not be a lot of room for growth in terms of adding additional power to the 5.2FPC engine if transmission longevity is a commensurate concern.

Personally, I'm eager to see a couple of things with this transmission. Will Ford continue to use a Guibo joint between the fixed flange and the driveshaft (I assume yes out of NVH concerns)? And we have yet to see the rear of the 3160 as used in this application (or a complete driveshaft for that matter). I don't see the ability to use a direct mount shifter on this transmission in the S550 chassis as it would be too far forward. That means a semi-remote shifter. Given that Tremec has different castings to date it is hard to discern whether any semi-remote shifter used on the GT350 will be single arm (such as the one used on the MT82 behind the Coyote engine) or dual arm (such as the one used on the TR6060 in the GT500). Neither has been a favorite among Ford faithful - far from it. Given the capability of the engine and the overall intent of the car itself, I can also see the TR3160 in the GT350 using a transmission cooler (or at least making it optional).

There's a lot riding on this car being done right. The transmission chosen has quite a challenge ahead of it. Good luck, TR3160. May you grind only in spirit.
 

DHG1078

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Established Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
9,368
Location
So Cal
They said in the Q&A I think that it was modified to have a dual mass flywheel and dual clutch system.

Edit: also I believe those torque ratings are based on a 6000 lb car weight or something along those lines.
 

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
Yup, I spotted that one and plan to see what can be dug up there too. I can't wait to see what the engineers got away with regarding the clutch.

Then again maybe they haven't snuck anything by yet as I suppose anything could still be tweaked at this point save for ditching the crank.:uh oh:
 

03cobra#694

Good Guy
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
62,531
Location
SW FL.
Tob, sent me your address so I can send you a bib to catch the salivation dripping off your chin regarding this car, lol.
I agree, this car really has me worked up too. Looking forward to your dissection of this GT 350.
 

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
Tob, sent me your address so I can send you a bib to catch the salivation dripping off your chin regarding this car, lol.
I agree, this car really has me worked up too. Looking forward to your dissection of this GT 350.


Tearing into this car, component by component, is something I welcome. We knew the car would have an IRS, phatter wheels/tires, revised dampers (but not to this level), and most likely a 5.2 with or without a very special reciprocating assembly. The transmission however, was a total mystery to much of the population that followed this car as it developed. I'm eager to hear every rationalization from Ford as to why it was chosen over competing considerations. If it ends up being a kick ass piece of hardware that elevates the experience - awesome. If it becomes problematic...let's not got there, yet. I'm confident that the crew that developed the car has vetted it to death and it met or exceeded their minimum specifications. I just hope their expectations were as high as mine.;-)

Go ahead and send the bib.
 

RaceRedSnake

Member
Established Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
168
Location
Minnesota
A lighter 6speed trans has me panting. I want one. I am beginning to think the Ford engineers really put some real thought in to making the GT350 into the ultimate track car. I am eager to see how far they take it in the next 2 to 3 years.
 

Willie2

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
2,571
Location
Houston
Can someone explain what "lighter transmission" quoted in the release means? Is it easier to manipulate or simply weigh less?

thanks in advance.
 

Voltwings

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
2,739
Location
Houston
So how many cars are there out there that routinely rev to 8K+ rpms from the factory that are equipped with a manual transmission? I can only think of a handful, S2k, BMW m3 ... I feel like these kind of high rpms really are asking a lot from a clutch and transmission... It will be interesting to see.
 

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
Can someone explain what "lighter transmission" quoted in the release means? Is it easier to manipulate or simply weigh less?

thanks in advance.

Willie, it looks like Ford merely made the decision to use a transmission that closely met the torque requirements of the new 5.2 engine. Since the torque numbers are lower than the outgoing GT500, the TR6060 was deemed as no longer being needed. Hence the opportunity to go with something smaller. I suppose at this point we should be thankful that the MT82 wasn't chosen for duty here. Ford is trying to shave off weight any and everywhere they can. The use of the 3160 is a clear example.
 

Voltwings

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2013
Messages
2,739
Location
Houston
The TR6060 also has very heavy and clunky gears due to their strength, they would never manage at 8k+ rpms.
 

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
Many in the GT500 sections would argue that the TR6060 doesn't manage 4k rpms. Then again, Ford Service would argue that those cars weren't designed to be driven that way...:rollseyes
 

Willie2

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
2,571
Location
Houston
Thanks. I also see R is on the left, that might take some getting used to.
 

sunburned

I miss my torque
Established Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
13,841
Location
NoVA
Thanks. I also see R is on the left, that might take some getting used to.

It's honestly a much better design. Put reverse on the right and you possibly stand a chance of an accidental reverse shift when trying to go in 5th or 6th. Of course lockouts stop that, but you never know.

My BMW had reverse on the left and it was great. Pull the shifter left like you were putting it in first, then pull a little further left and up. There was a detent to go past first, but very easy to get past since you are pulling towards your body. No worries of mis-shifting. And quick forward and back movement like a 3-point turn or rocking the car out of being stuck is much faster.
 

AustinSN

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Beer Money Bros.
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
6,408
Location
the plains
What does the ATS-V use? That engine will likely make much more low end than the 5.2. It would show that GM knows what it can stand up to as well.
 

Tob

Salut!
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
12,253
Location
The Ville
According to this article the ATS-V uses the TR6060 and it looks to be rated at even less power than the GT350 (possibly more torque but definitely less horsepower, anyway). Interesting. Also looks to be using titanium connecting rods as well.
 

Ry_Trapp0

Condom Model
Established Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
12,287
Location
Hebron, Ohio
AWESOME info as usual, Tob! have you thought about writing front page pieces on this kind of info? i'm sure travis would be all for it!

They said in the Q&A I think that it was modified to have a dual mass flywheel and dual clutch system.

Edit: also I believe those torque ratings are based on a 6000 lb car weight or something along those lines.
duel disc clutch, like found in the GT500, not necessarily dual clutch/twin clutch automated.
you're correct about the weight rating, VERY important to note as was found out when info about the MT82 came out.

According to this article the ATS-V uses the TR6060 and it looks to be rated at even less power than the GT350 (possibly more torque but definitely less horsepower, anyway). Interesting. Also looks to be using titanium connecting rods as well.
GM needs to drop the titanium rod BS already, nothing more than a marketing gimmick when steel rods would obviously be cheaper. the titanium turds in the LS7 don't hold a candle to the forged H-beams found in the '03/'04 cobras or the ford GT for instance. i believe the powdered metal pieces in the GT500 are about equal in strength, with builders pulling the factory rods out of either engine over 1000RWHP.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top