91GranSport Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 On the "General" forum, under "3.4 DOHC Bashing", Shawn mentioned that the 4T60-E isn't the most reliable of trannies available on our W-Body. So, out of the 4T60, 4T60-E, 4T65, and 4T65-E which is the most reliable? Which one is the piece of shit? I have the 4T60 on mine, all original with 180,000km and it hasn't caused any problems for me so far. The shifts are decent, not too rough, although you do feel the vehicle jerk slightly when moving from Park/Neutral to Drive/Reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 4T60 E's have a problem with certain parts going out quick, I forgot the name, not the servos but the ______....Ill think of it later as my shop teacher was telling us about em. The 4T60 non E is very reliable provided the fluid is maintained and not allowed to run low. Im going to say 4T65E is the strongest but I think it's too early to tell if it's most reliable. Mated to the 3100/3400 it probably is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminator94 Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 Well, I've had problems with two 4T60-E's, and one good 4T60-E. Majority rules for me, the 4T60-E is just to damn delicate. A pussy tranny! Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heza Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 i've heard all the same also about the 4t60e being a weak tranny...but you just gotta dress it up a little. when i get back to the states i am dropping a b&m shift+ into it so the clutch mechanism doesn't wear out prematurely. right now between 1st and 2nd, it takes forever to shift. also, a transmission cooler (research in progress) will help a lot in keeping the tranny from outrageous temperatures. because i'm sure all of you have noticed, but GM vehicles usually run warmer than any other motor out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 I think it's the final drive (differential assembly) that goes bad on them a lot. They tend to want to explode, and send pieces throughout the tranny, pretty much ruining the rest of it. The 4T60 is quite a bit more durable... at least behind a 2.8/3.1 they are. Could be the 2.8/3.1 just doesn't make enough power to grenade a 4T60. I've seen on ClubGP that many 4T65-E owners have trouble with their trannies, but they're also running 12-13 second 1/4-miles. Probably a 4T65-E that's not abused is also fairly reliable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heza Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 I think it's the final drive (differential assembly) that goes bad on them a lot. They tend to want to explode, and send pieces throughout the tranny, pretty much ruining the rest of it. The 4T60 is quite a bit more durable... at least behind a 2.8/3.1 they are. Could be the 2.8/3.1 just doesn't make enough power to grenade a 4T60. I've seen on ClubGP that many 4T65-E owners have trouble with their trannies, but they're also running 12-13 second 1/4-miles. Probably a 4T65-E that's not abused is also fairly reliable. true that...i've seen god knows how many pictures of differentials blowing out of the transmissions. my luck it'll happen now that i talked about it. as for the 3.1 not having enough power to grenade a 4t60...what about the 3.1 turbos?? i don't think i've ever heard of a dif. going out on one of those. probably is the case that the 4t60 is just more reliable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 well the 2.8 doesnt make the physical horsepower, but they have the low end tire ripping torque that can damage a FWD transaxle. I'm no pussy on my car, especially from a stop, and the trans hasn't even hiccuped yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby1870 Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 the reason the 4T60 on a TGP usually wont blow up, is because the 4T60 they used for the TGP was beefed up. Different valve body, torque converter, prolly some other stuff too. They did that to handle the torque of the TGP. And, they had to torque manage the TGP down to 225ft-lbs. Robby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian89gp Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 The TGP got a special tranny, put anything else besides it (regular 4t60 even) and it will grenade. Stock for stock the 4t65e is best, 4t60e second, and 4t60 last. The thing is that the 4t60 is popular enough to have enough performance parts to make it a hell of a lot better then a 4t60e which has nothing. I still think that the 4t60e HD is the best of the bunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heza Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 The TGP got a special tranny, put anything else besides it (regular 4t60 even) and it will grenade. Stock for stock the 4t65e is best, 4t60e second, and 4t60 last. The thing is that the 4t60 is popular enough to have enough performance parts to make it a hell of a lot better then a 4t60e which has nothing. I still think that the 4t60e HD is the best of the bunch. what vehicles had the 4t60e hd?? i don't think i've ever heard of that. i know i've heard of the 4t65e hd that the company that installs 4.9 cadi motors into w-body uses, but never a 4t60e hd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 what vehicles had the 4t60e hd?? i don't think i've ever heard of that. i know i've heard of the 4t65e hd that the company that installs 4.9 cadi motors into w-body uses, but never a 4t60e hd 3800 Series I SC used the 4T60-E HD. ASG used 4T60-E HD's also, not 4T65-E's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heza Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 what vehicles had the 4t60e hd?? i don't think i've ever heard of that. i know i've heard of the 4t65e hd that the company that installs 4.9 cadi motors into w-body uses, but never a 4t60e hd 3800 Series I SC used the 4T60-E HD. ASG used 4T60-E HD's also, not 4T65-E's. yes, ASG is the company i was looking for. thanks! thanks again for the correction on the 4t60e hd usages. i hadn't read up on ASGs kit for a while now. i'd sure love to have one though! i've only seen it in a 4-door lumina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 Eh, I wouldn't want it. The Caddy 4.9L is an old design based on the HT4100. The HT4100 is notorous for being a crappy design and a crappy engine. The Caddy 4.9L is better, but not a whole lot. It's still the funky wet-sleeve design with iron heads and an aluminum block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian89gp Posted May 21, 2003 Report Share Posted May 21, 2003 oops, meant to say the 4t65e HD is the best. Anyways all DOHC 4t60e's are HD versions as are the 4t60e's found in minivans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted May 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 Thanks a lot for your help Brian! I was beginning to get worried that I had a 4T60 instead of the 4T60-E. I baby my car throughout so I know that the powertrain should last a very long time. 4T60 E's have a problem with certain parts going out quick, I forgot the name, not the servos but the ______....Ill think of it later as my shop teacher was telling us about em. The 4T60 non E is very reliable provided the fluid is maintained and not allowed to run low. Im going to say 4T65E is the strongest but I think it's too early to tell if it's most reliable. Mated to the 3100/3400 it probably is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 u know what......i think GM has never made a really good FWD tranny. If they had, our cars would be available with a LOT more power. Someone correct me on this but I read somewhere that the 3.4 DOHC was created COMPLETELY with performance in mind. The article said that the engineers at GM had the 3.4 pushing 275hp easily...but they couldn't come up with a FWD tranny to handle the power so they just cut the spark and fuel delivery a little earlier, reducing peak power to 210hp and prolly increasing fuel economy in the process a bit.....but yah has anyone else read about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redfox340 Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 u know what......i think GM has never made a really good FWD tranny. If they had, our cars would be available with a LOT more power. Someone correct me on this but I read somewhere that the 3.4 DOHC was created COMPLETELY with performance in mind. The article said that the engineers at GM had the 3.4 pushing 275hp easily...but they couldn't come up with a FWD tranny to handle the power so they just cut the spark and fuel delivery a little earlier, reducing peak power to 210hp and prolly increasing fuel economy in the process a bit.....but yah has anyone else read about this? I heard about that too, but never saw the paperwork or how the LQ1 was detuned. There's a guy on EFI-Street.com forum that said he knew what they did to lower the power; well, the secret is out. And with that information given, he's now running 14's out of his 5-speed Z34. How sweet. - RedFox340 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby1870 Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 I think GM should release how they detuned the LQ1. I know all you LQ1 guys would love it. However, you would have to use the Getrag 284 with it. That would be sweet to see and LQ1 pushing 300HP Robby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 I had done a search on 3.4 DOHC on Google or something and i found this site.....they mentioned that whole idea somwhere in there but they didn't give any proofs or anything like that......so i dunno! heres the site: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/34Performance/dohc.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 well at any rate, GM surpasses Chrysler and maybe even Ford for FWD tranny reliability! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 well at any rate, GM surpasses Chrysler and maybe even Ford for FWD tranny reliability! Yah you're prolly right on that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminator94 Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 LOL, Chrysler just plain SUCKS! When I had my 89 Dynasty *wincing*...I actually ripped the D and the Y off all the badging so it read "Nasty" Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badprix Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 ah Ford I think its just "hit or miss" with their cars, I had a taurus and I could not keep the front right motor mount in that thing after a cold air and exhaust but the tranny held up even after I know tremendous driveline stress but right before it got totalled it was lagging in its shifts and in overdrive it was revving at 2500 at 50 mph and that was after a fluid change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldsmoBeast Posted May 22, 2003 Report Share Posted May 22, 2003 my question is why can't we make better FWD trannies like some of the other non-american car companies have? The other question is, how come they don't make more RWD cars? If our cars were RWD we'd be in good shape! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted May 23, 2003 Report Share Posted May 23, 2003 1- wish we had RWD cars 2- Japanese cars, most of them have less torque than my mountain bike on the lowest sprocket....I can only imagine this as being a big reason for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.