Ford Mustang Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Firstly, has anyone had a lot of experience dealing with the first generations of the MT82 since they released in 2011? I am curious if mine being a 2012 model would be a first generation MT82 with all of its issues and quirks, or a second generation? I was just reading up on this transmisison the last few days and I also wonder if just having the transmission completely rebuilt with the latest parts from Ford is really enough to address these issues? is it possible to upgrade a 2012 S197 to the newest generation MT82-D4? and should I even consider that?

-Thanks in advance to any discussion or answers related to this topic, sorry that I have so many of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,538 Posts
There are companies that rebuild MT82s to be much better than Ford made them.


You don't say what engine you have but the D4s for GTs have different ratios designed for the 2018 up GT power band. So take that into consideration.



For also made cost cutting changes such as weaker shift forks which were a serious problem. Later ones had revised parts. I'd research any other changes that might not be desirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Just what issues are you referring to? In so far as I know 2011-2017 are 1 st. gen transmissions. It's basically a fairly close ratio 5 speed with 6 th. gear being .65 overdrive and 5th being direct drive ie. 1:1. The D4 version came out in 2018 and 4 th. is 1:1 with both 5 th & 6th being overdrive. Not sure about the percentages. The D 4 is said to have better synchros and weaker shift forks. They MAY have fixed the shift forks by now. IMO most of the complaints about the 1 st. generation MT 82's are due to a less than ideal shifter and the factory clutch when trying to shift at rpms higher than the factory rev limiter will allow. The factory clutch helper spring is a little too stiff for good clutch feel. I think the transmission itself is fine other than a bit of notchiness when going from 1st to 2nd when cold. There are upgraded parts available. I have a Steeda clutch helper spring and cup assembly and once I learned to modify my shifting technique to allow for the shifter's design I haven't had any problems on my '14 GT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Just what issues are you referring to? In so far as I know 2011-2017 are 1 st. gen transmissions. It's basically a fairly close ratio 5 speed with 6 th. gear being .65 overdrive and 5th being direct drive ie. 1:1. The D4 version came out in 2018 and 4 th. is 1:1 with both 5 th & 6th being overdrive. Not sure about the percentages. The D 4 is said to have better synchros and weaker shift forks. They MAY have fixed the shift forks by now. IMO most of the complaints about the 1 st. generation MT 82's are due to a less than ideal shifter and the factory clutch when trying to shift at rpms higher than the factory rev limiter will allow. The factory clutch helper spring is a little too stiff for good clutch feel. I think the transmission itself is fine other than a bit of notchiness when going from 1st to 2nd when cold. There are upgraded parts available. I have a Steeda clutch helper spring and cup assembly and once I learned to modify my shifting technique to allow for the shifter's design I haven't had any problems on my '14 GT.
The issues in question are the clutch getting stuck during high RPMs, its supposed to have been addressed in 2011 with a TSB that replaced clutch springs but I have experienced this on my 2012. also gear grinding and noises which were also addressed from 2010-2011 with re gapping of some gears and a phosphate coating added to help reduce gear noises which I also experienced, another issue that I found no TSB for is in 2nd and 4th there is a metallic rubbing noise, the dealership that did the work said that these noises are normal for the transmission in my mustang but I had them overhaul it anyways, but these noises still persist. Tho it does shift much better now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
I don't have any personal experience with '11 or '12 cars. A friend of mine had a '13 track pack car and I don't recall him ever having any problems. It's been reported [ no personal knowledge ] that the factory did change the specs for the transmission oil on later models. I have just under 53,000 miles on my '14 and I think the transmission shifts pretty smoothly other than the previously mentioned 1-2 shift. I bought my car new and I found out not too long after I got the car that the factory rev limiter is set for 6,750-6,800 rpm, not the 7,000 the car magazines said it was. It's a hard limiter, not a soft one. I try to shift at 6,600 if I really want to hustle it, most of the time it's a bit under 6,000 if I just want to get on it. In any case the clutch has never hung up. Maybe I am just lucky. It seems that just about all the clutches today, both factory and aftermarket are of the diaphragm design [ basically a big Belleville washer ]. In the old days [ I was drag racing in the '60's ] nobody that had any choice in the matter would have used a diaphragm clutch as they lacked holding power and were known to hang up at high rpm. As a bit of old time trivia Chevys used a cheap diaphragm clutch and Mopars used a Borg & Beck style which was MUCH better, but resulted in a lot more effort at the pedal. Both Chrysler and Chevy used the same bolt pattern on the pressure plate/flywheel. It didn't take long before Chevy guys were either using Chrysler clutches or using aftermarket Borg & Beck style clutches. Ford often used the Long style pressure plates which were a variation on the Borg & Beck. I suppose the aftermarket has found a way to make the diaphragm design work. Even the factory versions are much better than they used to be. The Boss 302 clutch SHOULD be good to at least 7,500 rpm. Again no personal experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I don't have any personal experience with '11 or '12 cars. A friend of mine had a '13 track pack car and I don't recall him ever having any problems. It's been reported [ no personal knowledge ] that the factory did change the specs for the transmission oil on later models. I have just under 53,000 miles on my '14 and I think the transmission shifts pretty smoothly other than the previously mentioned 1-2 shift. I bought my car new and I found out not too long after I got the car that the factory rev limiter is set for 6,750-6,800 rpm, not the 7,000 the car magazines said it was. It's a hard limiter, not a soft one. I try to shift at 6,600 if I really want to hustle it, most of the time it's a bit under 6,000 if I just want to get on it. In any case the clutch has never hung up. Maybe I am just lucky. It seems that just about all the clutches today, both factory and aftermarket are of the diaphragm design [ basically a big Belleville washer ]. In the old days [ I was drag racing in the '60's ] nobody that had any choice in the matter would have used a diaphragm clutch as they lacked holding power and were known to hang up at high rpm. As a bit of old time trivia Chevys used a cheap diaphragm clutch and Mopars used a Borg & Beck style which was MUCH better, but resulted in a lot more effort at the pedal. Both Chrysler and Chevy used the same bolt pattern on the pressure plate/flywheel. It didn't take long before Chevy guys were either using Chrysler clutches or using aftermarket Borg & Beck style clutches. Ford often used the Long style pressure plates which were a variation on the Borg & Beck. I suppose the aftermarket has found a way to make the diaphragm design work. Even the factory versions are much better than they used to be. The Boss 302 clutch SHOULD be good to at least 7,500 rpm. Again no personal experience.
Like I said Ford issued these TSB's in 2010 and 2011 to address these issues and states they were implemented in all MT-82 Transmissions built after those dates, but my mustangs build date is borderline 2012 models so I probably have a late 2011 that didn't get the changes made from the later issued TSBs. Your '14 wouldn't see these problems, just the 2010, 2011 and early 2012's from what I have seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
Clutch staying down on high RPM shifts is not the MT82 but the weak clutch/pressure plate....I do believe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Clutch staying down on high RPM shifts is not the MT82 but the weak clutch/pressure plate....I do believe

The dealer said it was actually the clutch springs, I am not sure which they replaced but they did say it plurally. I am actually surprised those weren't replaced with the slave cylinder and clutch plate 30,000 miles ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
The 'actual clutch springs' is the diaphragm in the pressure plate assembly. The springs in the linkage are assist springs to soften and make lighter the clutch pedal feel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,387 Posts
Do you guys know what were the build dates when the TSB's were incorporated in the transmission? I am slowly but surely looking for a 2012 car and I want to make sure that I get one that was built after that date. Also want to make sure I get the EPAS/steering rack fix (earlier ones would go crazy if you install poly bushings in the front LCA's)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,387 Posts
thanks Coyote . . . I believe the changes were made part way through the 2012 model year, so the early 12's have the same issues as the 11's but the later 12's should have less issues . . . I'd like to find out what is that magic build date when all of the improvements were incorporated in the 2012 cars . . . I have seen it posted before but I forgot and can't find it now (unless I tried a lot harder, LOL)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
2011 was the first year for the EPASS system,and Ford learned it was to sensitive,so they changed it in 2012.


I don’t believe they changed it in all of 2012. Find a few forums where BMR chimes in and they will state their customers are 50/50 with a 2012 and EPAS issues with poly bushing.

I know for a fact that my 2011 with a completely built suspension has this issue. It was far worse driving with 275/40/18s up front vs the 255/45/18 I have now

One day I want to swap a 13/14 rack with mine to see if it improves the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5.0 Coyote
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top