Anybody else noticed a trend of an increased number of posts here and elsewhere on Rubicon tranny issues??? It's not a landslide by any means, or anything close to the number of ES problem posts we get, but still I see a trend there.....

Is it that these are now nearing 10 years old, and things are starting to happen??? They have a good reputation, but maybe there is a time limit on the durability of this tranny design?

It is also obvious that the Rancher 400AT was one of Honda's bigger mistakes (same tranny design!). Perhaps they discontinued it only after a couple of years, because they saw the writing on the wall??? Notice also that they didn't carry the transmission design over to the 420AT! Got to be something going on there.

I guess nothing will ever equal the durability of the old 300 4X4!

 

I don't know if it is an issue so much with the hydro transmission it's self, as most of the posts have been about the thing going into limp mode because a connector got corroded, a sensor went bad, and occasionally a bad shift motor.

Over the years I don't recall really seeing any where the hydrostat unit actually went out- unless someone went out of their way to damage it.

Most of the time the repair is pretty simple, but like anything else having a manual helps- so you can retrieve the error code and know what it means.

I don't think the hydrostat belonged on the 400 either. It's a transmission design that excels in high load low speed stuff, the kind of stuff most people pick a bigger machine to do.

Although I also prefer a foot shift 5 speed, about as simple as you can get, I think there's a big share of the market who would only consider buying an auto. From what I've seen the majority of the time the Rubicon transmission outlasts the rest of the machine.

If Honda felt they needed to offer an auto (which I think they did) I'm glad they went hydrostat instead of CVT belt...

 

I also think the rubi tranny is better than a belt. These are unbeatable for plowing, pulling, and spraying. Any amount of throttle and your moving, not like the belts needing 500+ more RPM's to start moving. Then there is no ability to keep it at a slow speed creep. Rubicon = best work utility ATV IMO. Most of the problems are probably due to the abuse and lack of proper maintenance. (sitting outside, water, mud, snow, not changing oil or using wrong type of oil)

 

The Rancher at shared design but not the same tranny. The Rubi's got a low range not availadle for the AT. That's most likely the biggest fault with the AT. People use it like a 400 can be used and with no low range this should not pull anything.

 

The new Rancher 420AT has a new totally unique gear-on-gear dual-clutch trans, that can be lift on auto, or shifted by buttons. It is yet unproven, but I wouldn't doubt that it takes over the whole lineup some day, and we see the other tranny designs fall by the wayside.....

 

The 420 is an exciting new machine. The tranny design comes from the racing world. The two clutch design is cool how 1-3-5 on one and r-2-4 on the other. so if one clutch goes out I wonder if the other would still function as a limp mode? Didn't Bombadier have a gear on gear auto in the traxter, the one with the step through design. I drove a used one when I was researching wheelers and it had some prob's (wouldn't shift without lifting of the throttle in auto mode. I beleive the auto mode was a shift program that controlled the shiftpoints. You could also run it in semi- auto mode.

 

Dual clutch tranmissions have been on the street for a while.

Chrysler was planning one with getrag, but it got dropped as things took a downturn. Though modern electronic controlled autos with locking torque converter are more efficient than their predecessors, they still aren't as efficient as a manual.

The dual clutch system may have closed that gap. Too bad.

Anyhow, I'd assume the Honda probably has two shift drums, and hence two angle sensors?

 

Hey JeffinTD, effficiency of the manual advantage is now just how much power reachers the rear wheels. With computers they are getting better fuel economy with automatic's than they are with manuals these days. And as far as racing goes, you have to be a pretty good driver to beat an auto. I also read of the chrysler gertrag dual clutch tranny. My sources tell me that six, seven, and eight speed trannies are on their way in chrysler cars in the not to distant future. At last I heard they are working with 4 different suppliers on bidding these projects. I think Honda could build the most technology advanced quad there is they just choose not to.

 

At this point, anyway, similar diesel trucks with the G56 vs the 68RFE, the trucks with the G (stick shift) do seem to get better MPG's (at least from what I've seen), dispite the 68RFE's taller top gear (double overdrive). I'd guess the loss is due to driving the auto's oil pump, and loss to heat when the torque converter isn't locked.

When I had an 03 SRW one ton stick, I could get 21 and above hand calculated. GF's dad has a SRW 3500 (also with 3.73's) that doesn't do as well...

The 68RFE is a huge improvement, but I think Dodge should have had that transmission 5 or 6 years ago. JMHO

 

Im over 3 thousand miles. mines an 02.
Knock on wood...
Been running amsoil for 2 or 3 years now.