2019 5.7 trans cooler location

Yes, and you would be right. Toyota engineers are a lot smarter about their product than the internet. When it comes time to re-balance cost against reliability, however, engineers don't get to make the final decision.

Toyota reliability has been built on probably millions of decisions over the decades. On Tundras, you have insight into what engineers thought was necessary for reliability in towing packages from 2007? until 2018. If Toyota did not make a change in the clutch facing material or in the fluid specification for 2019, that hasn't changed. Now, with their competition growing more mediocre every year, is it possible that Toyota may believe they only have to "faster than the bear"?...i.e. be better than the competition? After all, transmissions aren't supposed to last forever, and maybe the engineers have been convinced they've over-designed in the past.

Have you ever played Jenga?...Worry that bean counters, statisticians, and marketing guys are pulling out reliability blocks that will eventually bring your transmission reliability stack down. If I owned a 2019, I would worry about the air-to-ATF heat exchanger being deleted. I'm certain that engineers actually did some testing for management to confirm that this change will still provide "adequate" service life in most cases. Further, I'm sure that statisticians confirmed there wouldn't be any "replacing fleets of transmissions"...at least not on Toyota's dime.

Will the 2019 transmissions last as long as 2007-2018 transmissions?...unlikely in my opinion. Assuming the Ostrich Position will not help you with that. Will buying another brand help you? Maybe with the transmission, but then there's all the other stuff that breaks.

 

So you're actually saying that Toyota engineers didn't have anything to do with the decision.... that "bean counters" did?

That's a rather bold claim.

 

I don't think that is quite what he said. I'm an engineer - although not mechanical, and I am not in the automotive industry. But I am given certain goals to meet, and although I can influence those decisions, I do not always control the decisions. It is quite possible marketing decided the 2019s/2020s are the end of a model run (Given the 2021s will be a nearly complete redesign), and to keep prices down, they may have decided to cut some corners to keep costs down. An excellent theory (Although admittedly we haven't established as fact) that the redesign of the AC may have required a redesign of the cooling apparatus for the transmission. Since this would have cost money, they may have decided to try to figure out a way to avoid that cost. It sounds like they did. They may have decided to accept increased risk of failure in the few cases of extreme towing as a compromise to reduce cost. I don't know this for certain, but it is possible.

As an example, the trend towards increased intervals for changing engine oil (and no recommended intervals for changing transmission fluid) are often design goals the marketing people came up with. Engineers often have to devise ways to meet the demands of marketing (like increasing sump size, for example). Sometimes engineers have to implement decisions that are against their better judgment.

 

I’ve said it in this thread before and I’ll agree again, while no one here knows the definitive reason why it was deleted and everything is speculation, there are a lot of different factors that go in to the final decision. Engineers probably don’t have the final say. CEOs/managers/marketing do. It’s all about the bottom line and profit. And lawyers are in there somewhere too.

 

It is BOLD to say that management went against a engineering decision.

I don't believe that at all.

 

It's simplistic to think that any one group of employees made the decision. Management/marketing set target pricing to be competitive. Bean counters told them how MUCH the new features were going to cost. Design and Engineering management budgeted the necessary cuts for least impact, considering which components could maintain performance and meet government regulations without threatening consumer perception. Proposed engineering changes were made on test vehicles. Testing was done on the modified vehicles, and the transmission cooler drew the short straw. Toyota has effectively transferred new features costs to the consumer through reduced transmission longevity, and possibly other changes that are undiscovered and without such attention.

 

Also we can’t go by this site as an accurate sample size of any failed trans. On average about 100,000 Tundras have been sold yearly since 2000. That’s about 1,900,000 total. Maybe a little more, but not all are still on the road. There are members here with trucks from the years 2000-2006. If this site has 20,000 members, that’s .01%. Hardly an accurate sample size for failed transmissions.

Same reason why the cam tower poll in that thread was no where near accurate.

But yes, I do believe someone would hear something if a lot of transmissions failed. But no one knew mine failed in my 2010 unless I came on here and posted it myself.

 

You nor I either one know how the decision was made. We don't know the inter-workings of their corporate structure works.

I do not believe that AISIN and Toyota would knowingly target reduce life span of a transmission. That is why you still have a 6 speed transmission in the Tundra.

 

I have observed that you are a hard guy to convince. You're reading real world experience from guys that have been there. Being informed is always better than being "bold" and opinionated.

 

It’s a lot more bold to say engineers have the final say.

I never said the engineers said it was needed and the manager said no. As I and others have said, there are many factors all pointing towards profit. CEOs don’t care if you want a trans cooler, led headlights, or underseat storage, they want profit. And the tundras are a little behind others in innovation right now.

 

I doubt the change even made it to upper management engineering. I have a reason to believe this but I'm not going to say why.

If I were to "bet". I'd bet the engineers and AISIN engineers addressed the issue themselves. It is probably the reason the catalogs are wrong. They probably considered it a minor change not worthy of upper management approval.

 

All corporate structures are generally the same. I worked for three Fortune 10 companies during my career. I believe I'm pretty clear on how corporate bullshit works. As an engineer, I was countermanded on several critical decisions and design recommendations, one of which later resulted in severe injuries or death.

 

Until you tell us the reason, I’m not going to be convinced that engineers changed it and didn’t get approval. I believe they considered many factors, such as cost, reliability, ability to keep the same specs, and then made proposals that someone higher signed off on.

The best speculation I’ve seen in this thread is the change to the ac condenser cause of the new Freon wasn’t compatible as a dual ac/trans cooler anymore and Toyota as a whole based off many factors decided the stand alone wasn’t needed.

 

I think it is comical that people are trying to defend toyota for removing an auxiliary trans cooler. No matter how you slice it an auxiliary trans cooler is a good thing to have

Engineers aren’t almighty. They design something to fit within a given budget. They also can be ordered to cut costs and decide what is the least critical part to delete

 

If GM, Ford or RAM was one of them.... then I would believe it. Toyota hasn't given any indication they operate that way.

 

Comical? Believe whatever you want to believe. I know differently. If you have read what I've said from the beginning..... You would know that most trucks do not have them. They have a integrated cooler that works with the radiator. JUST LIKE TOYOTA HAS DONE......Air coolers are largely after market accessories.

Toyota hasn't had a dedicated cooler since 2010. Know your facts.

 

Okay. Fine with me. Just sharing my thoughts. Good day!

 

Not using the coolant in the radiator, using the coolant looping through the engine before thermostat opens. Heats up fast.

Wrong. The slowing of the atf would only increase dwell time, resulting in the opposite effect. The engine coolant controls transmission temperature. Do me a favor, don’t explain anything else for me. Thanks!

 

Consider some of the arguments put forth and imagine the scenarios.....

They redesigned the AC at the expense of a transmission....

Couple this with the fact we're in an age of abundance. People pay $80,000 for trucks! Toyota could have EASILY designed some robust looking ATF cooler and had arrows and 8x10 glossies pointing it out and you'd be stumbling over your bank account to pay an extra $2000 for it!

Between bean counters and marketing there is NOTHING they could make look like a benefit and profit off it. Toyota isn't starving or stupid.

While it is a bit distressing there is not one logical argument that can be made for changing how ATF is cooled..... unless.... ALIENS!

Has anyone with a pre-2019 posted ATF temps they are getting?

I'd be curious to see how much higher they've gotten..

 

Oh yeah? Well... I know you can save three seconds by typing Xmission instead of transmission!



Advantage: Spraynard!

 

Well, like most of your comments, that's not exactly right.

If you were an engineer, you would know that the square inches of heat transfer area in that little can on the side of the transmission can't be anywhere close to the heat transfer area that can be provided in radiator tanks. It is space limited, and it was designed to work with another component. Before, Toyota had belts and suspenders. That little "cooling" can on the side of the transmission also can't get the ATF any cooler than engine coolant temperature. Once the ATF temp exceeded the transmission thermostat set temp, there was an ambient air-to-fluid heat exchanger up front.

Air exchangers are less efficient in heat transfer, but ambient air temperature is also far lower than coolant temperature. Temperature difference (ambient air/ATF) across the exchanger is also a parameter in the heat exchange calculation. In older Tundras, the ATF could theoretically be regulated to the transmission thermostat set point provided the plate area was adequate. Now, it's never going to be lower than the engine coolant temperature, and once the heat generated by the transmission exceeds the heat exchange capacity of the can, the temp is going to be higher than engine coolant temp. How much is going to depend on the demand being made on the transmission.

Is that bad? Is it OK? If I owned a 2019, I would be uncomfortable if I towed heavy.

 

Oooh, almost missed this little gem, but fixed it for you. Thanks your way @hagrid ! I don’t have any narrative, just know how it works. The only things you accomplish with your opinion based conclusions is first, makes people who know and can explain not want to bother, and second you look foolish.

 

Time for a poll to see what the experience of this limited group of owners is.

How many transmission failures have occurred by:
1. Model year
2. Engine
3. Towing usage (i.e. light, medium, heavy, frequency)

PLEASE POST A REPLY, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

 

Mechanics know this. I've been a mechanic at times in my life and still enjoy mechanic work. I do my own. There is no need to embellish. I never said one thing contrary to what you said above. Not one. Provide the evidence I have.

Duh!

Well you're obviously not an engineer. This is a lie. The temperature will be lower than the coolant when it is below freezing. The coolant resists extremely cold temps. The ATF does not. So.... You're not telling the truth.

How's that for an old mechanic?

You can't define duration because you don't have all the parameters. Thus, your argument is useless. Which why I have said from the beginning that the real question is how hot is too hot.

There hasn't anyone saying the spike above coolant temp exceeds operating thresholds.

Add a air cooler if it makes you happy. Enjoy.

 

Run up your post count with a worth-while endeavor:

Set up a poll thread for maximum 4X4 5.7L/AB60F transmisssion temps from 200 degrees to 250 degees in 5 degree increments. Heck, I'm interested. The problem is most owners won't have the means to measure the temperature (If I owned one, I sure would GET the means.)

 

Not as fast as the transmission heating up on its own. That is why you get 6th gear before you get heat in the cabin of your little truck. You're so smart.

Yes. Dwell time in the hot transmission producing the heat increasing the overall temperature of the ATF. You're so smart.

The coolant temperature doesn't rise based on anything to do with the radiator itself. It rises due the friction within the engine and the transmission. You're so smart. You need some help.

 

Ahhh...So that's where all your corporate world experience came from. Keep being close-minded and confident that you know what you're talking about. It'll work for mechanics, not worth a damn for engineers.

 

You know you had your arse handed to you.

For your information. I'm in the "corporate world". I gave up mechanic/industrial maint for corporate life. I can do both.

 

SMFH

 

I can type that faster than three seconds slow poke.....