The point is that I didn't make any claims at all about Ford's position, I merely acknowledged that you did. The reality is that it is the only point I may agree with you on - there's no eveidence to suggest that Ford has a solution. I wouldn't have inferred otherwise. That was the essence of my critique - Ford doesn't know what the SOLUTION is - but you do?
We differ in that I'm not gonna put my engineering prowess up against all of what Ford/Ricardo can bring tothe table and proclaim a singular solution that I only I can think of and they can't.
AMB and I discussed and agreed in December that the minute spline engagement backlash was at the core of the issue - either causing the bolts to be walked out and then sheared or even potentially to be sheared in place because of the continued stresses and resulting fatigue. When thinking about it, frankly I don't think this is too difficult of a conclusion and I have no doubt that any drivetrain engineer is on it.
The more difficult question is what kind of solution will work which involves some pretty thorough analysis/knowledge of the min/max stacked tolerances that could accumulate to be the max play in the splines. Once understood, what kind of design could work within such an environment? Maybe stronger fasteners together with one or more means to keep them in place? Maybe not.
If an attachment resolution is not viable, then likely the only alternative is to change the shaft internal to the transaxle to a more conventional attachment method (single larger bolt) potentially along with better toleranced spline engagement - although I would think that over the years the engineer's have pretty much gotten spline tolerances defined to a science. This latter, invasive repair wiould no doubt necessitate a costly replacement of the entire transaxle as Ford would not allow dealerships to go into the internals on there own.
So, Ford is no doubt motivated to see if they can come up with a viable, non-intrusive repair. This is the most economical solution for Ford and the most convenient for us, the owners. I'm sure the looming alternative is to R&R 4,000 transaxles and deal with the backlash of the expense and some very unhappy owners.
But, maybe an alternative that they haven't considered is to subcontract the new design out to GTSAVER who already seems to have a solution ready to go.
