Gear selector

[Quacker]

Compared to my Ford Ranger auto shifter, which is basically of the same type, I would say that the Volvo is smooth, precise, shorter throw but a bit heavier to use. The Ranger’s shifter is lighter, much looser to the point of having some free play in each of its detented positions. Feels slack, cheap and plasticky in comparison to Volvo’s shifter. Still, I quite like both. They are different and suitable for the vehicles they are fitted to. Both have electronic interlocks but the Volvo has more.

No more than the Honda 9 speed auto though, whose shifter is up nearer the steering wheel. This is an unique design that was never offered in North America, even though the ZF box is made there. It uses a totally different shifter to those mated to the same box when fitted to Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover Discovery Sport and the Range Rover Evoque. All have very different ideas of shifter for the same box.

https://goo.gl/images/PsxZTV

https://goo.gl/images/wJqRVu

https://goo.gl/images/y72pbm

https://goo.gl/images/zryTYy


The 2020 model year Toyota RAV4 will use the same AW transmission that Volvo use. It is on its way to dealers now

Full list of applications for the AW 8 speed transverse tranaxles here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWF8F35

There are three versions to suit differing torque ratings, so they are not all identical. Shifter, modes and firmware will vary between car brands.

[HamDenFede]

I really like the shifter in the XC60. The size, feeling, appearence etc. all suit the car very well.

The XC40 shifter might be smaller, but when you try it out, it might disappoint you. Shifting pattern is odd, and put it in to manual (by pulling it far back by the way, not sideways as normal), and you will then have to do the throw left and right, to change up and down. Never seen that before.

[gaby]

@Quaker (slightly off-topic):
I wonder how the ZF and the XC90 gearbox compare.

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by gaby

@Quaker (slightly off-topic):
I wonder how the ZF and the XC90 gearbox compare.

Ive yet to hit 9th, but not done motorways yet. The ZF is very well programmed by Honda, so it changes exactly when it should and is smooth. Sport mode is much more conveniently switched and it has paddles.

The little joystick is light but it isnt as intuitive as the Volvo’s. It is also noisier when cold in the lowe two or three gears. Not noisy but noticeable and more so than the AW. The ZF is not for heavier duty than the 160hp 350Nm of the twin turbo Honda. No longer available in Honda because they have decided to only import petrol cvt versions of the new model

[gaby]

Am I right then that you don't feel that the ZF is (really) superior to the AW?

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by gaby

Am I right then that you don't feel that the ZF is (really) superior to the AW?

Superior in what way? It's control lever is different, better in some ways, not so much in others. Overall I'd say they are 'different' and certainly wouldn't favour one over the other. The steering paddles are nice to have but seldom used and they are available on some models of Volvo also. Ninth gear is apparently available on the ZF but I have not been fast enough yet to engage it, even manually, so it might make a difference at an 80mph cruising speed. For me, the XC90 is my long distance car and I've no dual carriageway within 35 miles and then only from Carmarthen to Pont Abraham, where the M4 starts [or ends], which is 55 miles away.

Both the Aisin Warner and the ZF are innovative compact designs that are protected by many patents. Both are widely used by many car brands built on several continents. Both are very efficient and, as far as I know, reliable. Both shift nicely and predictably with many clever features such as predictive downshifts when going downhill, trailer towing modes, all kinds of safety interlocks and so on.

While the IW front/four wheel drive, transverse version is very closely related to its well established in-line version, as used in Audi Q7 and larger Lexus models but with shorter shafts and a band brake instead of one of the brake packs, with many of the same parts and identical power flow through the geartrain, including several freewheeling epicyclics, the ZF is quite unique in that it replaces some planetary units with relatively fine tooth dogs.

Amazingly, the firmware used by Honda, completely disguises the changes made using dogs. I just can't tell which shifts they are, although apparently early Jeep Cherokees had quite unpleasant characteristics. Never driven one of those so can't comment on the validity of the complaints.

Both will become obsolete when all electric engines become the standard car power units in future, which may be sooner than we think the way production is being ramped up.

[gaby]

Originally Posted by Quacker

Superior in what way? It's control lever is different, better in some ways, not so much in others. Overall I'd say they are 'different' and certainly wouldn't favour one over the other.

The ZF has the reputation of being the better one, perhaps since (some) german premium brands favor it.
I sometimes read negative comments about the AW gearbox, mainly about slow response from standstill.
The ZF is then often mentioned as the better example. I can't compare, but I find nothing wrong with the AW.

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by gaby

The ZF has the reputation of being the better one, perhaps since (some) german premium brands favor it.
I sometimes read negative comments about the AW gearbox, mainly about slow response from standstill.
The ZF is then often mentioned as the better example. I can't compare, but I find nothing wrong with the AW.

On the contrary, the ZF 9HP is a newer design, manufactured in South Carolina, USA, and had a very troubled introduction. The first application was in the Jeep Cherokee, current shape, soon followed by the Range Rover Evoque. You may be thinking of the longitudinal 8 speed ZF 8HP** transmissions which have a better unblemished reputation. Having had earlier versions of ZF gearboxes and indeed own a current model 6 speed ZF, albeit one license-built by Ford, in my Ranger pickup, plus earlier versions of the longitudinal Aisin in the Q7, I would say that by far the biggest difference is in the firmware, the way they are programmed for the specific vehicle by the car's [not the transmission's] builder/manufacturer. For instance, although basically the same unit, the Ranger application is nothing like as well sorted as the same box fitted to my older Range Rover. It holds on to too low a gear too long up hills and doesn't downshift appropriately down hills and is slow and sometimes unreactive to my pedal request for a kickdown/downshift. There's a world of difference between how they behave and nobody would suspect that they are nearly identical gearboxes unless they knew the history.


Example of 9 speed ZF complaints. I must emphasise that my Honda has had zero issues and I've not heard of any issues in and other CR-V or Land Rover/Range Rover Liverpool built vehicle. This may reinforce the notion that firmware programming was the main problem.
http://www.lemonlaw.com/wordpress/zf...acura-drivers/

[gaby]

Originally Posted by Quacker

You may be thinking of the longitudinal 8 speed ZF 8HP** transmissions which have a better unblemished reputation.

Yes, you are right!

[Quacker]

The new Rav 4 is only available in 4wd mode as a hybrid petrol version. I believe it uses the same Aisin Warner hybrid auto transmission as the Volvo T8, probably in a vehicle costing up to £20k less. It won't have anything like the petrol power output of course.