Is the Aisin transmission worth it?

IdaD wrote:

I'm Rick James wrote:

IdaD wrote:

Ron3rd wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

I think the reason a lot of folks go with the 68 is it's cheaper and if you like the truck and the overall package, the 68 is fine. I'm gonna be in the market for a new CTD (probably Tradsman trim) and all the local ones I've seen have the 68 so that's what I'll go with. Maybe if I was fulltiming with a 5er I would consider the Aisin.

I'm the poster child for this. I could have eeked by with a heavy half ton but a 3/4 ton is just a lot better solution for me, and it really doesn't cost much more than the heavy half once you add HD Payload and Max Tow. I paid $39k and literally couldn't find an F150 on any lot for less than that equipped with those two packages. So, why not opt for the heavier duty truck with all the heavy duty components? I really didn't see any downsides to stepping up a level.

I've been real pleased with the 68 so far and in my case I didn't think it was worth the extra money for the Aisin. This truck is my daily driver and weekend tow vehicle and I figured the 68 would be fine for that workload.

Well, the good news for you is that the Aisin wasn't an option for your configuration.

I'm sure the 68RE is an adequate transmission, as is the Aisin. There are those that preach the "MDT" moniker for the Aisin but that usually devolves into semantics. Bottom line is that they are all (regardless of brand) fairly decent transmissions that none of us will be able to quantify their strengths or weaknesses.

I debated 3500 and it is an option there, so I did give it some thought. Happy with where I ended up though.

Totally happy with my 2014 3500 with the 68. I might of considered the Aisin if I was full timing , but for a few thousand miles per year towing just over 13K the 68 is doing just fine with the 3:42 gears.

I'm Rick James wrote:

IdaD wrote:

Ron3rd wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

I think the reason a lot of folks go with the 68 is it's cheaper and if you like the truck and the overall package, the 68 is fine. I'm gonna be in the market for a new CTD (probably Tradsman trim) and all the local ones I've seen have the 68 so that's what I'll go with. Maybe if I was fulltiming with a 5er I would consider the Aisin.

I'm the poster child for this. I could have eeked by with a heavy half ton but a 3/4 ton is just a lot better solution for me, and it really doesn't cost much more than the heavy half once you add HD Payload and Max Tow. I paid $39k and literally couldn't find an F150 on any lot for less than that equipped with those two packages. So, why not opt for the heavier duty truck with all the heavy duty components? I really didn't see any downsides to stepping up a level.

I've been real pleased with the 68 so far and in my case I didn't think it was worth the extra money for the Aisin. This truck is my daily driver and weekend tow vehicle and I figured the 68 would be fine for that workload.

Well, the good news for you is that the Aisin wasn't an option for your configuration.

I'm sure the 68RE is an adequate transmission, as is the Aisin. There are those that preach the "MDT" moniker for the Aisin but that usually devolves into semantics. Bottom line is that they are all (regardless of brand) fairly decent transmissions that none of us will be able to quantify their strengths or weaknesses.

I debated 3500 and it is an option there, so I did give it some thought. Happy with where I ended up though.

IdaD wrote:

Ron3rd wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

I think the reason a lot of folks go with the 68 is it's cheaper and if you like the truck and the overall package, the 68 is fine. I'm gonna be in the market for a new CTD (probably Tradsman trim) and all the local ones I've seen have the 68 so that's what I'll go with. Maybe if I was fulltiming with a 5er I would consider the Aisin.

I'm the poster child for this. I could have eeked by with a heavy half ton but a 3/4 ton is just a lot better solution for me, and it really doesn't cost much more than the heavy half once you add HD Payload and Max Tow. I paid $39k and literally couldn't find an F150 on any lot for less than that equipped with those two packages. So, why not opt for the heavier duty truck with all the heavy duty components? I really didn't see any downsides to stepping up a level.

I've been real pleased with the 68 so far and in my case I didn't think it was worth the extra money for the Aisin. This truck is my daily driver and weekend tow vehicle and I figured the 68 would be fine for that workload.

Well, the good news for you is that the Aisin wasn't an option for your configuration.

I'm sure the 68RE is an adequate transmission, as is the Aisin. There are those that preach the "MDT" moniker for the Aisin but that usually devolves into semantics. Bottom line is that they are all (regardless of brand) fairly decent transmissions that none of us will be able to quantify their strengths or weaknesses.

Ron3rd wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

I think the reason a lot of folks go with the 68 is it's cheaper and if you like the truck and the overall package, the 68 is fine. I'm gonna be in the market for a new CTD (probably Tradsman trim) and all the local ones I've seen have the 68 so that's what I'll go with. Maybe if I was fulltiming with a 5er I would consider the Aisin.

I'm the poster child for this. I could have eeked by with a heavy half ton but a 3/4 ton is just a lot better solution for me, and it really doesn't cost much more than the heavy half once you add HD Payload and Max Tow. I paid $39k and literally couldn't find an F150 on any lot for less than that equipped with those two packages. So, why not opt for the heavier duty truck with all the heavy duty components? I really didn't see any downsides to stepping up a level.

I've been real pleased with the 68 so far and in my case I didn't think it was worth the extra money for the Aisin. This truck is my daily driver and weekend tow vehicle and I figured the 68 would be fine for that workload.

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

I think the reason a lot of folks go with the 68 is it's cheaper and if you like the truck and the overall package, the 68 is fine. I'm gonna be in the market for a new CTD (probably Tradsman trim) and all the local ones I've seen have the 68 so that's what I'll go with. Maybe if I was fulltiming with a 5er I would consider the Aisin.

I'd get the AW if for no other reason than resale. Having driven them in the 5500 series I was sold years ago. Medium duty engine and medium duty trans in a light duty truck. Sounds just right for long life.

I'm Rick James wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

45Ricochet wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

You know it's kind of funny this Ford lover, Ram hater would jump into yet another Ram thread. I seem to remember THIS Ford thread and no Ram guys jumped in with cheap remarks. Usual hear say from Troy I might add.

Just calling a spade... a spade! The above statement I made is undeniable facts but spin it however you like rick.

Perhaps Rick James can chime in as well since he's one of the few straight shooters here that I've read.

Yes, I've had both the 68RFE and Aisin in a '12 and '14 respectively. Unloaded I cannot tell a difference between the two and when towing my toy hauler the Aisin simply seems to shift faster and firmer than the 68RFE but nothing dramatic. The 5R100 I had in my '08 Ford beats both of the Ram offerings IMO.

Thanks for your report!

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
I recall a while back "I'm Rick James" reported he could not notice any performance difference between the 68 and the Aisin tranny. It's interesting that the defenders of the 68 opted for the Aisin and I think we all know why!

Good luck...

With the Aisin there is for sure a difference it's called the lower starting gears and they really help get the load rolling with ease.

Chryslers Head West Coast Warranty Rep said when he was asked how well the Aisin trans is holding up he said "they don't break".

My 68RFE was flawless towing a combined load of 29K even with the too high 3:42 gears.

Pan with 50K on the AMZ/OIL.

I wouldn't put Amzoil in my lawnmower tranny... BTW I hate those small oil pans!

I assume you are joking about the transmission pan being small. If you did not know that is a MagHytec aftermarket Aircraft Aluminum "deep" pan. But I am sure you heard of one of your neighbor having a negative experience with one of those also.

Also I am sure you have heard of negative experiences with AMZ/OIL also.

65K on the rear diff towing a combined 29K. AMZ/OIL Severe Gear.

I noticed you had a after market oil pan... That's why I made the comment directed at the factory oil pan.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Sport45 wrote:
Whoever set those gears up did a good job. Nice contact pattern in both directions.

I wouldn't use it a poster pic for Amsoil though. I've seen plenty of clean diffs with just as many hard miles running store-brand oil. The cleanest are the ones with no limited slip clutches, but the 3.73 LS in my F-250 was pretty nice looking running the O'Reilly's synthetic lube with their friction modifier.

The worst looking diffs are the ones that get water in them because the vent tube gets pulled off for some reason or another...

I know that is not enough miles to prove anything but I was showing the people that said I would ruin my running gear towing that heavy with the 3:42's. I wish I had a pic of my 98 with 300K using AMZ/OIL the gears looked very nice!

Closer pic. I still think it looks pretty darn good Fish!

Looks good to me... I bet the factory oil would have produced the same results.

Sport45 wrote:
Whoever set those gears up did a good job. Nice contact pattern in both directions.

I wouldn't use it a poster pic for Amsoil though. I've seen plenty of clean diffs with just as many hard miles running store-brand oil. The cleanest are the ones with no limited slip clutches, but the 3.73 LS in my F-250 was pretty nice looking running the O'Reilly's synthetic lube with their friction modifier.

The worst looking diffs are the ones that get water in them because the vent tube gets pulled off for some reason or another...

I know that is not enough miles to prove anything but I was showing the people that said I would ruin my running gear towing that heavy with the 3:42's. I wish I had a pic of my 98 with 300K using AMZ/OIL the gears looked very nice!

Closer pic. I still think it looks pretty darn good Fish!